father of problem solving method

 MacTutor

George pólya.

... diligence and good behaviour.

I thought I am not good enough for physics and I am too good for philosophy. Mathematics is in between.

I was greatly influenced by Fejér , as were all Hungarian mathematicians of my generation, and, in fact, once or twice in small matters I collaborated with Fejér . In one or two papers of his I have remarks and he made remarks in one or two papers of mine, but it was not really a deep influence.

On Christmas 1913 I travelled by train from Zürich to Frankfurt and at that time I had a verbal exchange - about my basket that had fallen down - with a young man who sat across from me in the train compartment. I was in an overexcited state of mind and I provoked him. When he did not respond to my provocation, I boxed his ear. Later on it turned out that the young man was the son of a certain Geheimrat; he was a student, of all things, in Göttingen. After some misunderstandings I was told to leave by the Senate of the University.

I was... deeply influenced by Hurwitz . In fact I went to Zürich in order to be near Hurwitz and we were in close touch for about six years, from my arrival in Zürich in 1914 to his passing in ... 1919 . And we have one joint paper, but that is not the whole extent. I was very much impressed by him and edited his works. I was also impressed by his manuscripts.

I came very late to mathematics. ... as I came to mathematics and learned something of it, I thought: Well it is so, I see, the proof seems to be conclusive, but how can people find such results? My difficulty in understanding mathematics: How was it discovered?

... a mathematical masterpiece that assured their reputations.

Pólya was arguably the most influential mathematician of the 20 th century. His basic research contributions span complex analysis, mathematical physics, probability theory , geometry, and combinatorics. He was a teacher par excellence who maintained a strong interest in pedagogical matters throughout his long career.

For mathematics education and the world of problem solving it marked a line of demarcation between two eras, problem solving before and after Pólya.

The aim of heuristic is to study the methods and rules of discovery and invention .... Heuristic, as an adjective, means 'serving to discover'. ... its purpose is to discover the solution of the present problem. ... What is good education? Systematically giving opportunity to the student to discover things by himself.

If you can't solve a problem, then there is an easier problem you can solve: find it.

Mathematics in the primary schools has a good and narrow aim and that is pretty clear in the primary schools. ... However, we have a higher aim. We wish to develop all the resources of the growing child. And the part that mathematics plays is mostly about thinking. Mathematics is a good school of thinking. But what is thinking? The thinking that you can learn in mathematics is, for instance, to handle abstractions. Mathematics is about numbers. Numbers are an abstraction. When we solve a practical problem, then from this practical problem we must first make an abstract problem. ... But I think there is one point which is even more important. Mathematics, you see, is not a spectator sport. To understand mathematics means to be able to do mathematics. And what does it mean doing mathematics? In the first place it means to be able to solve mathematical problems.

Teaching is not a science; it is an art. If teaching were a science there would be a best way of teaching and everyone would have to teach like that. Since teaching is not a science, there is great latitude and much possibility for personal differences. ... let me tell you what my idea of teaching is. Perhaps the first point, which is widely accepted, is that teaching must be active, or rather active learning. ... the main point in mathematics teaching is to develop the tactics of problem solving.

... a remarkable theorem in a remarkable paper, and a landmark in the history of combinatorial analysis.

The whole work displays the taste of the authors for the concrete and explicit result, for elegance and ingenious methods.

With no hesitation, George Pólya is my personal hero as a mathematician. ... [ he ] is not only a distinguished gentleman but a most kind and gentle man: his ebullient enthusiasm, the twinkle in his eye, his tremendous curiosity, his generosity with his time, his spry energetic walk, his warm genuine friendliness, his welcoming visitors into his home and showing them his pictures of great mathematicians he has known - these are all components of his happy personality. As a mathematician, his depth, speed, brilliance, versatility, power and universality are all inspiring. Would that there were a way of teaching and learning these traits.

References ( show )

• G L Alexanderson, The Polya picture album ( Basel, 1987) .
• G L Alexanderson, The random walks of George Pólya ( Washington, DC, 2000) .
• H Taylor and L Taylor, George Pólya : Master of Discovery ( Palo Alto, CA, 1993) .
• D J Albers and G L Alexanderson ( eds. ) , Mathematical People: Profiles and Interviews ( Boston, 1985) , 245 - 254 .
• G L Alexanderson and L H Lange, Obituary: George Pólya, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (6) (1987) , 559 - 608 .
• G L Alexanderson and J Pedersen, George Pólya : his life and work ( Hungarian ) , Mat. Lapok 33 (4) (1982 / 86) , 225 - 233 .
• R P Boas, Selected topics from Pólya's work in complex analysis, Math. Mag. 60 (5) (1987) , 271 - 274 .
• R P Boas, Pólya's work in analysis, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (6) (1987) , 576 - 583 .
• H Cartan, La vie et l'oeuvre de George Pólya, C. R. Acad. Sci. Sér. Gén. Vie Sci. 3 (6) (1986) , 619 - 620 .
• K L Chung, Pólya's work in probability, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (6) (1987) , 570 - 576 .
• F Harary, Homage to George Pólya, J. Graph. Theory 1 (4) (1977) , 289 - 290 .
• P Hilton and J Pedersen, The Euler characteristic and Pólya's dream, Amer. Math. Monthly 103 (2) (1996) , 121 - 131 .
• J-P Kahane, The grand figure of George Pólya ( Czech ) , Pokroky Mat. Fyz. Astronom. 35 (4) (1990) , 177 - 191 .
• J Kilpatrick, George Pólya's influence on mathematics education, Math. Mag. 60 (5) (1987) , 299 - 300 .
• D H Lehmer, Comments on number theory, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (6) (1987) , 584 - 585 .
• A Pfluger, George Pólya, J. Graph Theory 1 (4) (1977) , 291 - 294 .
• R C Read, Pólya's theorem and its progeny, Math. Mag. 60 (5) (1987) , 275 - 282 .
• R C Read, Pólya's enumeration theorem, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (6) (1987) , 588 - 590 .
• P C Rosenbloom, Studying under Pólya and Szegö at Stanford, in A century of mathematics in America II ( Providence, RI, 1989) , 279 - 281 .
• D Schattschneider, The Pólya-Escher connection, Math. Mag. 60 (5) (1987) , 293 - 298 .
• D Schattschneider, Pólya's geometry, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (6) (1987) , 585 - 588 .
• M M Schiffer, George Pólya (1887 - 1985) , Math. Mag. 60 (5) (1987) , 268 - 270 .
• M M Schiffer, Pólya's contributions in mathematical physics, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (6) (1987) , 591 - 594 .
• A H Schoenfeld, Pólya, problem solving, and education, Math. Mag. 60 (5) (1987) , 283 - 291 .
• A H Schoenfeld, George Pólya and mathematicvs education, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (6) (1987) , 594 - 596 .
• Y S Tseng, On Pólya's Mathematical discovery ( Chinese ) , J. Math. Res. Exposition 3 (1) (1983) , 213 - 216 .
• Y S Tseng, Correction: 'On Pólya's Mathematical discovery' ( Chinese ) , J. Math. Res. Exposition 3 (2) (1983) , 22 .
• A A Wieschenberg, A conversation with George Pólya, Math. Mag. 60 (5) (1987) , 265 - 268 .
• I M Yaglom, George Pólya ( on the 100 th anniversary of his birth ) ( Russian ) , Mat. v Shkole (3) (1988) , 67 - 70 .

Additional Resources ( show )

Other pages about George Pólya:

• Pólya on Fejér
• Pólya and Szegö's Problems and Theorems in Analysis
• Hardy's reference for Pólya at ETH
• Some of Pólya's favourite quotes
• Preface to Pólya's How to solve it
• Heinz Klaus Strick biography

Other websites about George Pólya:

• Australia Mathematics Trust
• Mathematical Genealogy Project
• MathSciNet Author profile
• zbMATH entry

Honours ( show )

Honours awarded to George Pólya

• LMS Honorary Member 1956
• Popular biographies list Number 44

Cross-references ( show )

• Societies: Canadian Mathematical Society
• Societies: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Societies: Zurich Scientific Research Society
• Other: 1936 ICM - Oslo
• Other: 2009 Most popular biographies
• Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (C)
• Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (E)
• Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (M)
• Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (P)
• Other: Earliest Uses of Symbols of Number Theory
• Other: London Learned Societies
• Other: Most popular biographies – 2024
• Other: Popular biographies 2018

A3 8 Step Practical Problem Solving – Skill Level 1: Knowledge

Brief history of modern problem solving methods.

The diagram below shows a “Time Line of Modern Problem Solving” and depicts some of the key milestones that have led to the processes used for problem solving in organisations today.

It is possible to trace the strands of the modern problem solving approaches we are familiar with in the lean movement. A five step problem solving method was originally taught in Japan as part of a course called The Fundamentals of Industrial Management by Homer Sarasohn and Charles Protzman. Deming’s modified Shewart cycle – known as the Deming Wheel was taken and developed by the Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers (JUSE.) JUSE was key in the dissemination of problem solving processes under the guidance of Ichiro and Kaoru Ishikawa. In 1951

JUSE created the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle which we know as PDCA. Despite Deming’s objections to the modification, this has become the dominant form of the Deming cycle today. They also invited Juran to Japan to give lectures in 1954.

Another key strand are the Training Within Industry (TWI) courses. Initially the 3J courses were taught, but in 1955, TWI Problem Solving was developed. The process outlined four basic steps of problem solving in the TWI framework to help train people, improve work methods and resolve problems in a structured way:

• 1 – Isolate the problem
• 2 – Prepare for solution
• 3 – Correct the problem
• 4 – Check and evaluate the results

In the 1960’s, various 6-step approaches were created. These can be summarised as follows:

Six Step Method

• 1- Define the problem.
• 2 – Determine the goal.
• 3 – Identify the root cause.
• 4 – Implement countermeasures.
• 5 – Check results.
• 6 – Follow up and standardise.

In the 1960’s and 70’s the concept of “kaizen” emerged in Japan. Its literal translation means “change for the better.” Different from structured problem solving and gap from standard situations, kaizen asks “How can the current standard or condition be improved upon?” Kaizen is not bound by the rules of root cause analysis thinking – it is more open ended. Processes are observed and considered for improvement.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 17 February 2023

A brief history of heuristics: how did research on heuristics evolve?

• Mohamad Hjeij   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4231-1395 1 &
• Arnis Vilks 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  64 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

10k Accesses

3 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Heuristics are often characterized as rules of thumb that can be used to speed up the process of decision-making. They have been examined across a wide range of fields, including economics, psychology, and computer science. However, scholars still struggle to find substantial common ground. This study provides a historical review of heuristics as a research topic before and after the emergence of the subjective expected utility (SEU) theory, emphasising the evolutionary perspective that considers heuristics as resulting from the development of the brain. We find it useful to distinguish between deliberate and automatic uses of heuristics, but point out that they can be used consciously and subconsciously. While we can trace the idea of heuristics through many centuries and fields of application, we focus on the evolution of the modern notion of heuristics through three waves of research, starting with Herbert Simon in the 1950s, who introduced the notion of bounded rationality and suggested the use of heuristics in artificial intelligence, thereby paving the way for all later research on heuristics. A breakthrough came with Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in the 1970s, who analysed the biases arising from using heuristics. The resulting research programme became the subject of criticism by Gerd Gigerenzer in the 1990s, who argues that an ‘adaptive toolbox’ consisting of ‘fast-and-frugal’ heuristics can yield ‘ecologically rational’ decisions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Rational use of cognitive resources in human planning

Frederick Callaway, Bas van Opheusden, … Falk Lieder

Lessons for artificial intelligence from the study of natural stupidity

Alexander S. Rich & Todd M. Gureckis

People construct simplified mental representations to plan

Mark K. Ho, David Abel, … Thomas L. Griffiths

Introduction

Over the past 50 years, the notion of ‘heuristics’ has considerably gained attention in fields as diverse as psychology, cognitive science, decision theory, computer science, and management scholarship. While for 1970, the Scopus database finds a meagre 20 published articles with the word ‘heuristic’ in their title, the number has increased to no less than 3783 in 2021 (Scopus, 2022 ).

We take this to be evidence that many researchers in the aforementioned fields find the literature that refers to heuristics stimulating and that it gives rise to questions that deserve further enquiry. While there are some review articles on the topic of heuristics (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011 ; Groner et al., 1983 ; Hertwig and Pachur, 2015 ; Semaan et al., 2020 ), a somewhat comprehensive and non-partisan historical review seems to be missing.

While interest in heuristics is growing, the very notion of heuristics remains elusive to the point that, e.g., Shah and Oppenheimer ( 2008 ) begin their paper with the statement: ‘The word “heuristic” has lost its meaning.’ Even if one leaves aside characterizations such as ‘rule of thumb’ or ‘mental shortcut’ and considers what Kahneman ( 2011 ) calls ‘the technical definition of heuristic,’ namely ‘a simple procedure that helps find adequate, though often imperfect, answers to difficult questions,’ one is immediately left wondering how simple it has to be, what an adequate, but the imperfect answer is, and how difficult the questions need to be, in order to classify a procedure as a heuristic. Shah and Oppenheimer conclude that ‘the term heuristic is vague enough to describe anything’.

However, one feature does distinguish heuristics from certain other, typically more elaborate procedures: heuristics are problem-solving methods that do not guarantee an optimal solution. The use of heuristics is, therefore, inevitable where no method to find an optimal solution exists or is known to the problem-solver, in particular where the problem and/or the optimality criterion is ill-defined. However, the use of heuristics may be advantageous even where the problem to be solved is well-defined and methods do exist which would guarantee an optimal solution. This is because definitions of optimality typically ignore constraints on the process of solving the problem and the costs of that process. Compared to infallible but elaborate methods, heuristics may prove to be quicker or more efficient.

Nevertheless, the range of what has been called heuristics is very broad. Application of a heuristic may require intuition, guessing, exploration, or experience; some heuristics are rather elaborate, others are truly shortcuts, some are described in somewhat loose terms, and others are well-defined algorithms.

One procedure of decision-making that is commonly not regarded as a heuristic is the application of the full-blown theory of subjective expected utility (SEU) in the tradition of Ramsey ( 1926 ), von Neumann and Morgenstern ( 1944 ), and Savage ( 1954 ). This theory is arguably spelling out what an ideally rational decision would be, but was already seen by Savage (p. 16) to be applicable only in what he called a ‘small world’. Quite a few approaches that have been called heuristics have been explicitly motivated by SEU imposing demands on the decision-maker, which are utterly impractical (cf., e.g., Klein, 2001 , for a discussion). As a second defining feature of the heuristics we want to consider, therefore, we take them to be procedures of decision-making that differ from the ‘gold standard’ of SEU by being practically applicable in at least a number of interesting cases. Along with SEU, we also leave aside the rules of deductive logic, such as Aristotelian syllogisms, modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. While these can also be seen as rules of decision-making, and the universal validity of some of them is not quite uncontroversial (see, e.g., Priest, 2008 , for an introduction to non-classical logic), they are widely regarded as ‘infallible’. By stark contrast, it seems characteristic for heuristics that their application may fail to yield a ‘best’ or ‘correct’ result.

By taking heuristics to be practically applicable, but fallible, procedures for problem-solving, we will also neglect the literature that focuses on the adjective ‘heuristic’ instead of on the noun. When, e.g., Suppes ( 1983 ) characterizes axiomatic analyses as ‘heuristic’, he is not suggesting any rule, but he is saying that heuristic axioms ‘seem intuitively to organize and facilitate our thinking about the subject’ (p. 82), and proceeds to give examples of both heuristic and nonheuristic axioms. It may of course be said that many fundamental equations in science, such as Newton’s force = mass*acceleration, have some heuristic value in the sense indicated by Suppes, but the research we will review is not about the property of being heuristic.

Given that heuristics can be assessed against the benchmark of SEU, one may distinguish broadly between heuristics suggested pre-SEU, i.e., before the middle of the 20th century, and the later research on heuristics that had to face the challenge of an existing theory of allegedly rational decision-making. We will review the former in the section “Deliberate heuristics—the art of invention” below, and devote sections “Herbert Simon: rationality is bounded”, “Heuristics in computer science” and “Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky: heuristics and biases” to the latter.

To cover the paradigmatic cases of what has been termed ‘heuristics’ in the literature, we have to take ‘problem-solving’ in a broad sense that includes decision-making and judgement, but also automatic, instinctive behaviour. We, therefore, feel that an account of research on heuristics should also review the main views on how observable behaviour patterns in humans—or maybe animals in general—can be explained. This we do in the section “Automatic heuristics: learnt or innate?”.

While our brief history cannot aim for completeness, we selected the scholars to be included based on their influence and contributions to different fields of research related to heuristics. Our focus, however, will be on the more recent research that may be said to begin with Herbert Simon.

That problem-solving according to SEU will, in general, be impractical, was clearly recognized by Herbert Simon, whose notion of bounded rationality we look at in the section “Herbert Simon: rationality is bounded”. In the section “Heuristics in computer science”, we also consider heuristics in computer science, where the motivation to use heuristics is closely related to Simon’s reasoning. In the section “Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky: heuristics and biases”, we turn to the heuristics identified and analysed by Kahneman and Tversky; while their assessment was primarily that the use of those heuristics often does not conform to rational decision-making, the approach by Gigerenzer and his collaborators, reviewed in the section “Gerd Gigerenzer: fast-and-frugal heuristics” below, takes a much more affirmative view on the use of heuristics. Section “Critiques” explains the limitations and critiques of the corresponding ideas. The final section “Conclusion” contains the conclusion, discussion, and avenues for future research.

The evolutionary perspective

While we focus on the history of research on heuristics, it is clear that animal behaviour patterns evolved and were shaped by evolutionary forces long before the human species emerged. Thus ‘heuristics’ in the mere sense of behaviour patterns have been used long before humans engaged in any kind of conscious reflection on decision-making, let alone systematic research. However, evolution endowed humans with brains that allow them to make decisions in ways that are quite different from animal behaviour patterns. According to Gibbons ( 2007 ), the peculiar evolution of the human brain started thousands of years ago when the ancient human discovered fire and started cooking food, which reduced the amount of energy the body needed for digestion. This paved the way for a smaller intestinal tract and implied that the excess calories led to the development of larger tissues and eventually a larger brain. Through this organ, intelligence increased exponentially, resulting in advanced communication that allowed Homo sapiens to collaborate and form relationships that other primates at the time could not match. According to Dunbar ( 1998 ), it was in the time between 400,000 and 100,000 years ago that abilities to hunt more effectively took humans from the middle of the food chain right to the top.

It does not seem to be known when and how exactly the human brain developed the ability to reflect on decisions made consciously, but it is now widely recognized that in addition to the fast, automatic, and typically nonconscious type of decision-making that is similar to animal behaviour, humans also employ another, rather a different type of decision-making that can be characterized as slow, conscious, controlled, and reflective. The former type is known as ‘System 1’ or ‘the old mind’, and the latter as ‘System 2’ or ‘the new mind’ (Evans, 2010 ; Kahneman, 2011 ), and both systems have clearly evolved side by side throughout the evolution of the human brain. According to Gigerenzer ( 2021 ), humans as well as other organisms evolved to acquire what he calls ‘embodied heuristics’ that can be both innate or learnt rules of thumb, which in turn supply the agility to respond to the lack of information by fast judgement. The ‘embodied heuristics’ use the mental capacity that includes the motor and sensory abilities that start to develop from the moment of birth.

While a detailed discussion of the ‘dual-process theories’ of the mind is beyond the scope of this paper, we find it helpful to point out that one may distinguish between ‘System 1 heuristics’ and ‘System 2 heuristics’ (Kahneman 2011 , p. 98). While some ‘rules of decision-making’ may be hard-wired into the human species by its genes and physiology, others are complicated enough that their application typically requires reflection and conscious mental effort. Upon reflection, however, the two systems are not as separate as they may seem. For example, participants in the Mental Calculation World Cup perform mathematical tasks instantly, whereas ordinary people would need a pen and paper or a calculator. Today, many people cannot multiply large numbers or calculate a square root using only a pen and paper but can easily do this using the calculator app on their smartphone. Thus, what can be done by spontaneous effortless calculation by some, may for others require the application of a more or less complicated theory.

Nevertheless, one can loosely characterize the heuristics that have been explained and recommended for more or less well-specified purposes over the course of history as System 2 or deliberate heuristics.

Deliberate heuristics—the art of invention

Throughout history, scholars have investigated methods to solve complex tasks. In this section, we review those attempts to formulate ‘operant and voluntary’ heuristics to solve demanding problems—in particular, to generate new insights or do research in more or less specified fields. Most of the heuristics in this section have been suggested before the emergence of the SEU theory and the associated modern definition of rationality, and none of them deals with the kind of decision problems that are assumed as ‘given’ in the SEU model. The reader will notice that some historical heuristics were suggested for problems that, today, may seem too general to be solved. However, through the development of such attempts, later scholars were inspired to develop a more concrete understanding of the notion of heuristics.

The Greek origin

The term heuristic originates from the Greek verb heurísko , which means to discover or find out. The Greek word heúrēka , allegedly exclaimed by Archimedes when discovering how to measure the volume of a random object through water, derives from the same verb and can be translated as I found it! (Pinheiro and McNeill, 2014 ). Heuristics can thus be said to be etymologically related to the discipline of discovery, the branch of knowledge based on investigative procedures, and are naturally associated with trial techniques, including what-if scenarios and simple trial and error.

While the term heurísko does not seem to be used in this context by Aristotle, his notion of induction ( epagôgê ) can be seen as a method to find, but not prove, true general statements and thus as a heuristic. At any rate, Aristotle considered inductive reasoning as leading to insights and as distinct from logically valid syllogisms (Smith, 2020 ).

Pappus (4th century)

While a brief, somewhat cryptic, mention of analysis and synthesis appears in Book 13 of some, but not all, editions of Euclid’s Elements, a clearer explanation of the two methods was given in the 4th century by the Greek mathematician and astronomer Pappus of Alexandria (cf. Heath, 1926 ; Polya, 1945 ; Groner et al., 1983 ). While synthesis is what today would be called deduction from known truths, analysis is a method that can be used to try and find proof. Two slightly different explanations are given by Pappus. They boil down to this: in order to find proof for a statement A, one can deduce another statement B from A, continue by deducing yet another statement C from B, and so on, until one comes upon a statement T that is known to be true. If all the inferences are convertible, the converse deductions evidently constitute a proof of A from T. While Pappus did not mention the condition that the inferences must be convertible, his second explanation of analysis makes it clear that one must be looking for deductions from A which are both necessary and sufficient for A. In Polya’s paraphrase of Pappus’ text: ‘We enquire from what antecedent the desired result could be derived; then we enquire again what could be the antecedent of that antecedent, and so on, until passing from antecedent to antecedent, we come eventually upon something already known or admittedly true.’ Analysis thus described is hardly a ‘shortcut’ or ‘rule of thumb’, but quite clearly it is a heuristic: it may help to find a proof of A, but it may also fail to do so…

Al-Khawarizmi (9th century)

In the 9th century, the Persian thinker Mohamad Al-Khawarizmi, who resided in Baghdad’s centre of knowledge or the House of Wisdom , used stepwise methods for problem-solving. Thus, after his name and findings, the algorithm concept was derived (Boyer, 1991 ). Although a heuristic orientation has sometimes been contrasted with an algorithmic one (Groner and Groner, 1991 ), it is worth noting that an algorithm may well serve as a heuristic—certainly in the sense of a shortcut, and also in the sense of a fallible method. After all, an algorithm may fail to produce a satisfactory result. We will return to this issue in the section “Heuristics in computer science” below.

Zairja (10th century)

Heuristic methods were created by medieval polymaths in their attempts to find solutions for the complex problems they faced—science not yet being divorced from what today would appear as theology or astrology. Perhaps the first tangible example of a heuristic based on a mechanical device was using an ancient tool called a zairja , which Arab astrologers employed before the 11th century (Ritchey, 2022 ). It was designed to reconfigure notions into ideas through randomization and resonance and thus to produce answers to questions mechanically (Link, 2010 ). The word zairja may have originated from the Persian combination zaicha-daira , which means horoscope-circle. According to Ibn Khaldoun, ‘zairja is the technique of finding out answers from questions by means of connections existing between the letters of the expressions used in the question; they imagine that these connections can form the basis for knowing the future happenings they want to know’ (Khaldun, 1967 ).

Ramon Llull (1305)

The Majorcan philosopher Ramon Llull (or Raimundus Lullus), who was exposed to the Arabic culture, used the zairja as a starting point for his ars inveniendi veritatem that was meant to complement the ars demonstrandi of medieval Scholastic logic and on which he worked from around 1270–1305 (Link, 2010 ; Llull, 1308 ; Ritchey, 2022 ) when he finished his Ars Generalis Ultima (or Ars Magna ). Llull transformed the astrological and combinatorial components of the zairja into a religious system that took the fundamental ideas of the three Abrahamic faiths of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism and analysed them through symbolic and numeric reasoning. Llull tried to broaden his theory across all fields of knowledge and combine all sciences into a single science that would address all human problems. His thoughts impacted great thinkers, such as Leibniz, and even the modern theory of computation (Fidora and Sierra, 2011 ). Llull’s approach may be considered a clear example of heuristic methods applied to complicated and even theological questions (Hertwig and Pachur, 2015 ).

Joachim Jungius (1622)

Arguably, the German mathematician and philosopher Joachim Jungius was the first to use the terminology heuretica in a call to establish a research society in 1622. Jungius distinguished between three degrees or levels of learning and cognition: empirical, epistemic, and heuristic. Those who have reached the empirical level believe that what they have learned is true because it corresponds to experience. Those who have reached the epistemic level know how to derive their knowledge from principles with rigorous evidence. But those who have reached the highest level, the heuristic level, have a method of solving unsolved problems, finding new theorems, and introducing new methods into science (Ritter et al., 2017 ).

René Descartes (1637)

In 1637, the French philosopher René Descartes published his Discourse on Method (one of the first major works not written in Latin). Descartes argued that humans could utilize mathematical reasoning as a vehicle for progress in knowledge. He proposed four simple steps to follow in problem-solving. First, to accept as true only what is indubitable. Next, divide the problem into as many smaller subproblems as possible and helpful. After that, to conduct one’s thoughts in an orderly fashion, beginning with the simplest and gradually ascending to the most complex. And finally, to make enumerations so complete that one is assured of having omitted nothing (Descartes, 1998 ). In reference to his other methods, Descartes ( 1908 ) started working on the proper heuristic rules to transform every problem, when possible, into algebraic equations, thus creating a mathesis universalis or universal science. In his unfinished ‘Rules for the Direction of the Mind’ or Regulae ad directionem ingenii , Descartes suggested 21 heuristic rules (of planned 36) for scientific research like simplifying the problem, rewriting the problem in geometrical shape, and identifying the knowns and the unknowns. Although Leibniz criticized the rules of Descartes for being too general (Leibniz, 1880 ), this treatise outlined the basis for later work on complex problems in several disciplines.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1666)

Influenced by the ideas of Llull, Jungius, and Descartes, the Prussian–German polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz suggested an original approach to problem-solving in his Dissertatio de Arte Combinatoria , published in Leipzig in 1666. His aim was to create a new universal language into which all problems could be translated and a standard solving procedure that could be applied regardless of the type of the problem. Leibniz also defined an ars inveniendi as a method for finding new truths, distinguishing it from an ars iudicandi , a method to evaluate the validity of alleged truths. Later, in 1673, he invented the calculating machine that could execute all four arithmetic operations and thus find ‘new’ arithmetic truths (Pombo, 2002 ).

Bernard Bolzano ( 1837 )

In 1837, the Czech mathematician and philosopher Bernard Bolzano published his four-volume Wissenschaftslehre (Theory of Science). The fourth part of his theory he called ‘Erfindungskunst’ or the art of invention, mentions in the introductory section 322 that ‘heuristic’ is just the Greek translation. Bolzano explains that the rules he is going to state are not at all entirely new, but instead have always been used ‘by the talented’—although mostly not consciously. He then explains 13 general and 33 special rules one should follow when trying to find new truths. Among the general rules are, e.g., that one should first decide on the question one wants to answer, and the kind of answer one is looking for (section 325), or that one should choose suitable symbols to represent one’s ideas (section 334). Unlike the general rules, the special ones are meant to be helpful for special mental tasks only. E.g., in order to solve the task of finding the reason for any given truth, Bolzano advises first to analyse or dissect the truth into its parts and then use those to form truths which are simpler than the given one (section 378). Another example is Bolzano’s special rule 28, explained in section 386, which is meant to help identify the intention behind a given action. To do so, Bolzano advises exploring the agent’s beliefs about the effects of his action at the time he decided to act, and explains that this will require investigating the agent’s knowledge, his degree of attention and deliberation, any erroneous beliefs the agent may have had, and ‘many other circumstances’. Bolzano continues to point out that any effect the agent may have expected to result from his action will not be an intended one if he considered it neither as an obligation nor as advantageous. While Bolzano’s rules can hardly be considered as ‘shortcuts’, he mentions again and again that they may fail to solve the task at hand adequately (cf. Hertwig and Pachur, 2015 ; Siitonen, 2014 ).

Frank Ramsey ( 1926 )

In Ramsey’s pathbreaking paper on ‘Truth and Probability’ which laid the foundation of subjective probability theory, a final section that has received little attention in the literature is devoted to inductive logic. While he does not use the word ‘heuristic’, he characterizes induction as a ‘habit of the mind,’ explaining that he uses ‘habit in the most general possible sense to mean simply rule or the law of behaviour, including instinct,’ but also including ‘acquired rules.’ Ramsey gives the following pragmatic justification for being convinced by induction: ‘our conviction is reasonable because the world is so constituted that inductive arguments lead on the whole to true opinions,’ and states more generally that ‘we judge mental habits by whether they work, i.e., whether the opinions they lead to are for the most part true, or more often true than those which alternative habits would lead to’ (Ramsey, 1926 ). In modern terminology, Ramsey was pointing out that mental habits—such as inductive inference—may be more or less ‘ecologically rational’.

Karl Duncker ( 1935 )

Karl Duncker was a pioneer in the experimental investigation of human problem-solving. In his 1935 book Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens , he discussed both heuristics that help to solve problems, but also hindrances that may block the solution of a problem—and reported on a number of experimental findings. Among the heuristics was a situational analysis with the aim of uncovering the reasons for the gap between the status quo and the problem-solvers goal, analysis of the goal itself, and of sacrifices the problem-solver is willing to make, of prerequisites for the solution, and several others. Among the hindrances to problem-solving was what Duncker called functional fixedness, illustrated by the famous candle problem, in which he asked the participants to fix a candle to the wall and light it without allowing the wax to drip. The available tools were a candle, matches, and a box filled with thumbtacks. The solution was to empty the box of thumbtacks, fix the empty box to the wall using the thumbtacks, put the candle in the box, and finally light the candle. Participants who were given the empty box as a separate item could solve this problem, while those given the box filled with thumbtacks struggled to find a solution. Through this experiment, Duncker illustrated an inability to think outside the box and the difficulty in using a device in a way that is different from the usual one (Glaveanu, 2019 ). Duncker emphasized that success in problem-solving depends on a complementary combination of both the internal mind and the external problem structure (cf. Groner et al., 1983 ).

George Polya ( 1945 )

The Hungarian mathematician George Polya can be aptly called the father of problem-solving in modern mathematics and education. In his 1945 book, How to Solve it , Polya writes that ‘heuristic…or ‘ ars inveniendi ’ was the name of a certain branch of study…often outlined, seldom presented in detail, and as good as forgotten today’ and he attempts to ‘revive heuristic in a modern and modest form’. According to his four principles of mathematical problem-solving, it is first necessary to understand the problem, then plan the execution, carry out the plan, and finally, reflect and search for improvement opportunities. Among the more detailed suggestions for problem-solving explained by Polya are to ask questions such as ‘can you find the solution to a similar problem?’, to use inductive reasoning and analogy, or to choose a suitable notation. Procedures inspired by Polya’s ( 1945 ) book and several later ones (e.g., Induction and Analogy in Mathematics of 1954 ) also informed the field of artificial intelligence (AI) (Hertwig and Pachur, 2015 ).

Johannes Müller (1968)

In 1968, the German scientist Johannes Müller introduced the concept of systematic heuristics while working on his postdoctoral thesis at the Chemnitz University of Technology. Systematic heuristics is a framework for improving the efficiency of intellectual work using problem-solving processes in the fields of science and technology.

The main idea of systematic heuristics is to solve repeated problems with previously validated solutions. These methods are called programmes and are gathered in a library that can be accessed by the main programme, which receives the requirements, prepares the execution plan, determines the required procedures, executes the plan, and finally evaluates the results. Müller’s team was dismissed for ideological reasons, and his programme was terminated after a few years, but his findings went on to be successfully applied in many projects across different industries (Banse and Friedrich, 2000 ).

Imre Lakatos ( 1970 )

In his ‘Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’ that turned out to be a major contribution to the Popper–Kuhn controversy about the rationality of non-falsifiable paradigms in the natural sciences, Lakatos introduced the interesting distinction between a ‘negative heuristic’ that is given by the ‘hard core’ of a research programme and the ‘positive heuristic’ of the ‘protective belt’. While the latter suggests ways to develop the research programme further and to predict new facts, the ‘hard core’ of the research programme is treated as irrefutable ‘by the methodological decision of its protagonists: anomalies must lead to changes only in the ‘protective’ belt’ of auxiliary hypotheses. The Lakatosian notion of a negative heuristic seems to have received little attention outside of the Philosophy of Science community but may be important elsewhere: when there are too many ways to solve a complicated problem, excluding some of them from consideration may be helpful.

Gerhard Kleining ( 1982 )

The German sociologist Gerhard Kleining suggested a qualitative heuristic as the appropriate research method for qualitative social science. It is based on four principles: (1) open-mindedness of the scientist who should be ready to revise his preconceptions about the topic of study, (2) openness of the topic of study, which is initially defined only provisionally and allowed to be modified in course of the research, (3) maximal variation of the research perspective, and (4) identification of similarities within the data (Kleining, 1982 , 1995 ).

Automatic heuristics: learnt or innate?

Unlike the deliberate, and in some cases quite elaborate, heuristics reviewed above, at least some System 1 heuristics are often applied automatically, without any kind of deliberation or conscious reflection on the task that needs to be performed or the question that needs to be answered. One may view them as mere patterns of behaviour, and as such their scientific examination has been a long cumulative process through different disciplines, even though explicit reference to heuristics was not often made.

Traditionally, examining the behaviour patterns of any living creature, any study concerning thoughts, feelings, or cognitive abilities was regarded as the task of biologists. However, the birth of psychology as a separate discipline paved the way for an alternative outlook. Evolutionary psychology views human behaviour as being shaped through time and experience to promote survival throughout the long history of human struggle with nature. With many factors to consider, scholars have been interested in the evolution of the human brain, patterns of behaviour, and problem-solving (Buss and Kenrick, 1998 ).

Charles Darwin (1873)

Charles Darwin himself maybe qualifies for the title of first evolutionary psychologist, as his perceptions laid the foundations for this field that would continue to grow over a century later (Ghiselin, 1973 ).

In 1873, Darwin claimed that the brain’s articulations regarding expressions and emotions have probably developed similarly to its physical traits (Baumeister and Vohs, 2007 ). He acknowledged that personal demonstrations or expressions have a high capacity for interaction with different peers from the same species. For example, an aggressive look flags an eagerness to battle yet leaves the recipient with the option of retreating without either party being harmed. Additionally, Darwin, as well as his predecessor Lamarck, constantly emphasized the role of environmental factors in ‘the struggle for existence’ that could shape the organism’s traits in response to changes in their corresponding environments (Sen, 2020 ). The famous example of giraffes that grew long necks in response to trees growing taller is an illustration of a major environmental effect. Similarly, cognitive skills, including heuristics, must have also been shaped by the environments to evolve and keep humans surviving and reproducing.

Darwin’s ideas impacted the early advancement of brain science, psychology, and all related disciplines, including the topic of cognitive heuristics (Smulders, 2009 ).

William James (1890)

A few years later, in 1890, the father of American psychology, William James, introduced the notion of evolutionary psychology in his 1200-page text The Principles of Psychology , which later became a reference on the subject and helped establish psychology as a science. In its core content, James reasoned that many actions of the human being demonstrate the activity of instincts, which are the evolutionary embedded inclinations to react to specific incentives in adaptive manners. With this idea, James added an important building block to the foundation of heuristics as a scientific topic.

A simple example of such hard-wired behaviour patterns would be a sneeze, the preprogrammed reaction of convulsive nasal expulsion of air from the lungs through the nose and mouth to remove irritants (Baumeister and Vohs, 2007 ).

Ivan Pavlov (1897)

Triggered by scientific curiosity or the instinct for research, as he called it, the first Russian Nobel laureate, Ivan Pavlov, introduced classical conditioning, which occurs when a stimulus is used that has a predictive relationship with a reinforcer, resulting in a change in response to the stimulus (Schreurs, 1989 ). This learning process was demonstrated through experiments conducted with dogs. In the experiments, a bell (a neutral stimulus) was paired with food (a potent stimulus), resulting ultimately in the dogs salivating at the ringing of the bell—a conditioned response. Pavlov’s experiments remain paradigmatic cases of the emergence of behaviour patterns through association learning.

William McDougall (1909)

At the start of the 20th century, the Anglo-American psychologist William McDougall was one of the first to write about the instinct theory of motivation. McDougall argued that instincts trigger many critical social practices. He viewed instincts as extremely sophisticated faculties in which specific provocations such as social impediments can drive a person’s state of mind in a particular direction, for example, towards a state of hatred, envy, or anger, which in turn may increase the probability of specific practices such as hostility or violence (McDougall, 2015 ).

However, in the early 1920s, McDougall’s perspective about human behaviour being driven by instincts faded remarkably as scientists supporting the concept of behaviourism started to get more attention with original ideas (Buss and Kenrick, 1998 ).

John B. Watson (1913)

The pioneer of the psychological school of behaviourism, John B. Watson, who conducted the controversial ‘Little Albert’ experiment by imposing a phobia on a child to evidence classical conditioning in humans (Harris, 1979 ), argued against the ideas of McDougall, even within public debates (Stephenson, 2003 ). Unlike McDougall, Watson considered the brain an empty page ( tabula rasa as described by Aristotle). According to him. all personality traits and behaviours directly result from the accumulated experience that starts from birth. Thus, the story of the human mind is a continuous writing process featured by surrounding events and factors. This perception was supported in the following years of the 20th century by anthropologists who revealed many very different social standards in different societies, and numerous social researchers argued that the wide variety of cross-cultural differences should lead to the conclusion that there is no mental content built-in from birth, and that all knowledge, therefore, comes from individual experience or perception (Farr, 1996 ). In stark contrast to McDougall, Watson suggested that human intuitions and behaviour patterns are the product of a learning process that starts blank.

B. F. Skinner (1938)

Inspired by the work of Pavlov, the American psychologist B.F. Skinner took the classical conditioning approach to a more advanced level by modifying a key aspect of the process. According to Skinner, human behaviour is dependent on the outcome of past activities. If the outcome is bad, the action will probably not be repeated; however, if the outcome is good, the likelihood of the activity being repeated is relatively high. Skinner called this process reinforcement learning (Schacter et al., 2011 ). Based on reinforcement learning, Skinner also introduced the concept of operant conditioning, a type of associative learning process through which the strength of a behaviour is adjusted by reinforcement or punishment. Considering, for example, a parent’s response to a child’s behaviour, the probability of the child repeating an action will be highly dependent on the parent’s reaction (Zilio, 2013 ). Effectively, Skinner argues that the intuitive System 1 may get edited and that a heuristical cue may become more or less ‘hard-wired’ in the subject’s brain as a stimulus leading to an automatic response.

The DNA and its environment (1953 onwards)

Today, there seems to be wide agreement that behaviour patterns in humans and other species are to some extent ‘in the DNA’, the structure of which was discovered by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953, but that they also to some extent depend on ‘the environment’—including the social environment in which the agent lives and has problems to solve. Today, it seems safe to say, therefore, that the methods of problem-solving that humans apply are neither completely innate nor completely the result of environmental stimuli—but rather the product of the complex interaction between genes and the environment (Lerner, 1978 ).

Herbert Simon: rationality is bounded

Herbert Simon is well known for his contributions to several fields, including economics, psychology, computer science, and management. Simon proposed a remarkable theory that led him to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1978.

Bounded rationality and satisficing

In the mid-1950s, Simon published A Behavioural Model of Rational Choice, which focused on bounded rationality: the idea that people must make decisions with limited time, mental resources, and information (Simon, 1955 ). He clearly states the triangle of limitations in every decision-making process—the availability of information, time, and cognitive ability (Bazerman and Moore, 1994 ). The ideas of Simon are considered an inspiring foundation for many technologies in use today.

Instead of conforming to the idea that economic behaviour can be seen as rational and dependent on all accessible data (i.e., as optimization), Simon suggested that the dynamics of decision-making were essentially ‘satisficing,’ a notion synthesized from ‘satisfy’ and ‘suffice’ (Byron, 1998 ). During the 1940s, scholars noticed the frequent failure of two assumptions required for ‘rational’ decision-making. The first is that data is never enough and may be far from perfect, while people dependably make decisions based on incomplete data. Second, people do not assess every feasible option before settling on a decision. This conduct is highly correlated with the cost of data collection since data turns out to be progressively harder and costlier to accumulate. Rather than trying to find the ideal option, people choose the first acceptable or satisfactory option they find. Simon described this procedure as satisficing and concluded that the human brain in the decision-making process would, at best, exhibit restricted abilities (Barros, 2010 ).

Since people can neither obtain nor process all the data needed to make a completely rational decision, they use the limited data they possess to determine an outcome that is ‘good enough’—a procedure later refined into the take-the-best heuristic. Simon’s view that people are bounded by their cognitive limits is usually known as the theory of bounded rationality (cf. Gigerenzer and Selten, 2001 ).

Herbert Simon and AI

With the cooperation of Allen Newell of the RAND Corporation, Simon attempted to create a computer simulator for human decision-making. In 1956, they created a ‘thinking’ machine called the ‘Logic Theorist’. This early smart device was a computer programme with the ability to prove theorems in symbolic logic. It was perhaps the first man-made programme that simulated some human reasoning abilities to solve actual problems (Gugerty, 2006 ). After a few years, Simon, Newell, and J.C. Shaw proposed the General Problem Solver or GPS, the first AI-based programme ever invented. They actually aimed to create a single programme that could solve all problems with the same unified algorithm. However, while the GPS was efficient with sufficiently well-structured problems like the Towers of Hanoi (a puzzle with 3 rods and different-sized disks to be moved), it could not solve real-life scenarios with all their complexities (A. Newell et al., 1959 ).

By 1965, Simon was confident that ‘machines will be capable of doing any work a man can do’ (Vardi, 2012 ). Therefore, Simon dedicated most of the remainder of his career to the advancement of machine intelligence. The results of his experiments showed that, like humans, certain computer programmes make decisions using trial-and-error and shortcut methods (Frantz, 2003 ). Quite explicitly, Simon and Newell ( 1958 , p. 7) referred to heuristics being used by both humans and intelligent machines: ‘Digital computers can perform certain heuristic problem-solving tasks for which no algorithms are available… In doing so, they use processes that are closely parallel to human problem-solving processes’.

Additionally, the importance of the environment was also clearly observed in Newell and Simon’s ( 1972 ) work:

‘Just as scissors cannot cut paper without two blades, a theory of thinking and problem-solving cannot predict behaviour unless it encompasses both an analysis of the structure of task environments and an analysis of the limits of rational adaptation to task requirements’ (p. 55).

Accordingly, the term ‘task environment’ describes the formal structure of the universe of choices and results for a specific problem. At the same time, Newell and Simon do not treat the agent and the environment as two isolated entities, but rather as highly related. Consequently, they tend to believe that agents with different cognitive abilities and choice repertoires will inhabit different task environments even though their physical surroundings and intentions might be the same (Agre and Horswill, 1997 ).

Heuristics in computer science

Computer science as a discipline may have the biggest share of deliberately applied heuristics. As heuristic problem-solving has often been contrasted with algorithmic problem-solving—even by Simon and Newell ( 1958 )—it is worth recalling that the very notion of ‘algorithm’ was clarified only in the first half of the 20th century, when Alan Turing ( 1937 ) defined what was later named ‘Turing-machine’. Basically, he defined ‘mechanical’ computation as a computation that can be done by a—stylized—machine. ‘Mechanical’ being what is also known today as algorithmic, one can say that any procedure that can be performed by a digital computer is algorithmic. Nevertheless, many of them are also heuristics because an algorithm may fail to produce an optimal solution to the problem it is meant to solve. This may be so either because the problem is ill-defined or because the computations required to produce the optimal solution may not be feasible with the available resources. If the problem is ill-defined—as it often is, e.g., in natural language processing—the algorithm that does the processing has to rely on a well-defined model that does not capture the vagueness and ambiguities of the real-life problem—a problem typically stated in natural language. If the problem is well-defined, but finding the optimal solution is not feasible, algorithms that would find it may exist ‘in principle’, but require too much time or memory to be practically implemented.

In fact, there is today a rich theory of complexity classes that distinguishes between types of (well-defined) problems according to how fast the time or memory space required to find the optimal solution increases with increasing problem size. E.g., for problem types of the complexity class P, any deterministic algorithm that produces the optimal solution has a running time bounded by a polynomial function of the input size, whereas, for problems of complexity class EXPTIME, the running time is bounded by an exponential function of the input size. In the jargon of computer science, problems of the latter class are considered intractable, although the input size has to become sufficiently large before the computation of the optimal solution becomes practically infeasible (cf. Harel, 2000 ; Hopcroft et al., 2007 ). Research indicates that the computational complexity of problems can also reduce the quality of human decision-making (Bossaerts and Murawski, 2017 ).

Shortest path algorithms

A classic optimization problem that may serve to illustrate the issues of optimal solution, complexity, and heuristics goes by the name of the travelling salesman problem (TSP), which was first introduced in 1930. In this problem, several cities with given distances between each two are considered, and the goal is to find the shortest possible path through all cities and return to the starting point. For a small input size, i.e., for a small number of cities, the ‘brute-force’ algorithm is easy to use: write down all the possible paths through all the cities, calculate their lengths, and choose the shortest. However, the number of steps that are required by this procedure quickly increases with the number of cities. The TSP is today known to belong to the complexity class NP which is in between P and EXPTIME Footnote 1 ). To solve the TSP, Jon Bentley ( 1982 ) proposed the greedy (or nearest-neighbour) algorithm that will yield an acceptable result, but not necessarily the optimal one, within a relatively short time. This approach always picks the nearest neighbour as the next city to visit without regard to possible later non-optimal steps. Hence, it is considered a good-enough solution with fast results. Bentley argued that there may be better solutions, but that it approximates the optimal solution. Many other heuristic algorithms have been explored later on. There is no assurance that the solution found by a heuristic algorithm will be an ideal answer for the given problem, but it is acceptable and adequate (Pearl, 1984 ).

Heuristic algorithms of the shortest path are utilized nowadays by GPS frameworks and self-driving vehicles to choose the best route from any point of departure to any destination (for example, A* Search Algorithm). Further developed algorithms can also consider additional elements, including traffic, speed limits, and quality of roads, they may yield the shortest routes in terms of distance and the fastest ones in terms of driving time.

Computer chess

While the TSP consists of a whole set of problems which differ by the number of cities and the distances between them, determining the optimal strategy for chess is just one problem of a given size. The rules of chess make it a finite game, and Ernst Zermelo proved in 1913 that it is ‘determined’: if it were played between perfectly rational players, it would always end with the same outcome: either White always wins, or Black always wins, or it always ends with a draw (Zermelo, 1913 ). Up to the present day, it is not known which of the three is true, which points to the fact that a brute-force algorithm that would go through all possible plays of chess is practically infeasible: it would have to explore too many potential moves, and the required memory would quickly run out of space (Schaeffer et al., 2007 ). Inevitably, a chess-playing machine has to use algorithms that are ‘shortcuts’—which can be more or less intelligent.

While Simon and Newell had predicted in 1958 that within ten years the world chess champion would be a computer, it took until 1997, when a chess-playing machine developed by IBM under the name Deep Blue defeated grandmaster Garry Kasparov. Although able to analyse millions of possibilities due to their computing powers, today’s chess-playing machines apply a heuristic approach to eliminate unlikely moves and focus on those with a high probability of defeating their opponent (Newborn, 1997 ).

Machine learning

One of the main features of machine learning is the ability of the model to predict a future outcome based on past data points. Machine learning algorithms build a knowledge base similar to human experience from previous experiences in the dataset provided. From this knowledge base, the model can derive educated guesses.

A good demonstration of this is the card game Top Trumps in which the model can learn to play and keep improving to dominate the game. It does so by undertaking a learning path through a sequence of steps in which it picks two random cards from the deck and then analyses and compares them with random criteria. According to the winning result, the model iteratively updates its knowledge base in the same manner as a human, following the rule that ‘practice makes perfect.’ Hence the model will play, collect statistics, update, and iterate while becoming more accurate with each increment (Volz et al., 2016 ).

Natural language processing

In the world of language understanding, current technologies are far from perfect. However, models are becoming more reliable by the minute. When analysing and dissecting a search phrase entered into the Google search engine, a background model tries to make sense of the search criteria. Stemming words, context analysis, the affiliation of phrases, previous searches, and autocorrect/autocomplete can be applied in a heuristic algorithm to display the most relevant result in less than a second. Heuristic methods can be utilized when creating certain algorithms to understand what the user is trying to express when searching for a phrase. For example, using word affiliation, an algorithm tries to narrow down the meaning of words as much as possible toward the user’s intention, particularly when a word has more than one meaning but changes with the context. Therefore, a search for apple pie allows the algorithm to deduce that the user is highly interested in recipes and not in the technology company (Sullivan, 2002 ).

Search and big data

Search is a good example to appreciate the value of time, as one of the most important criteria is retrieving acceptable results in an acceptable timeframe. In a full search algorithm, especially in large datasets, retrieving optimal results can take a massive amount of time, making it necessary to apply heuristic search.

Heuristic search is a type of search algorithm that is used to find solutions to problems in a faster way than an exhaustive search. It uses specific criteria to guide the search process and focuses on more favourable areas of the search space. This can greatly reduce the number of nodes required to find a solution, especially for large or complex search trees.

Heuristic search algorithms work by evaluating the possible paths or states in a search tree and selecting the better ones to explore further. They use a heuristic function, which is a measure of how close a given state is to the goal state, to guide the search. This allows the algorithm to prioritize certain paths or states over others and avoid exploring areas of the search space that are unlikely to lead to a solution. The reached solution is not necessarily the best, however, a ‘good enough’ one is found within a ‘fast enough’ time. This technique is an example of a trade-off between optimality and speed (Russell et al., 2010 ).

Today, there is a rich literature on heuristic methods in computer science (Martí et al., 2018 ). As the problem to be solved may be the choice of a suitable heuristic algorithm, there are also meta-heuristics that have been explored (Glover and Kochenberger, 2003 ), and even hyper-heuristics which may serve to find or generate a suitable meta-heuristic (Burke et al., 2003 ). As Sörensen et al. ( 2018 ) point out, the term ‘metaheuristic’ may refer either to an ‘algorithmic framework that provides a set of guidelines or strategies to develop heuristic optimization algorithms’—or to a specific algorithm that is based on such a framework. E.g., a metaheuristic to find a suitable search algorithm may be inspired by the framework of biological evolution and use its ideas of mutation, reproduction and selection to produce a particular search algorithm. While this algorithm will still be a heuristic one, the fact that it has been generated by an evolutionary process indicates its superiority over alternatives that have been eliminated in the course of that process (cf. Vikhar, 2016 ).

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky: heuristics and biases

Inspired by the concepts of Herbert Simon, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky initiated the heuristics and biases research programme in the early 1970s, which emphasized how individuals make judgements and the conditions under which those judgements may be inaccurate (Kahneman and Klein, 2009 ).

In addition, Kahneman and Tversky emphasized information processing to elaborate on how real people with limitations can decide, choose, or estimate (Kahneman, 2011 ).

The remarkable article Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , published in 1974, is considered the turning key that opened the door wide to research on this topic, although it was and still is considered controversial (Kahneman, 2011 ). In their research, Kahneman and Tversky identified three types of heuristics by which probabilities are often assessed: availability, representativeness, and anchoring and adjustment. In passing, Kahneman and Tversky mention that other heuristics are used to form non-probabilistic judgements; for example, the distance of an object may be assessed according to the clarity with which it is seen. Other researchers subsequently introduced different types of heuristics. However, availability, representativeness, and anchoring are still considered fundamental heuristics for judgements under uncertainty.

Availability

According to the psychological definition, availability or accessibility is the ease with which a specific thought comes to mind or can be inferred. Many people use this type of heuristic when judging the probability of an event that may have happened or will happen in the future. Hence, people tend to overestimate the likelihood of a rare event if it easily comes to mind because it is frequently mentioned in daily discussions (Kahneman, 2011 ). For instance, individuals overestimate their probability of being victims of a terrorist attack while the real probability is negligible. However, since terrorist attacks are highly available in the media, the feeling of a personal threat from such an attack will also be highly available during our daily life (Kahneman, 2011 ).

This concept is also present in business, as we remember the successful start-ups whose founders quit college for their dreams, such as Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, and ignore the thousands of ideas, start-ups, and founders that failed. This is because successful companies are considered a hot topic and receive broad coverage in the media, while failures do not. Similarly, broad media coverage is known to create top-of-mind awareness (TOMA) (Farris et al., 2010 ). Moreover, the availability type of heuristics was offered as a clarification for fanciful connections or irrelevant correlations in which individuals wrongly judge two events to be related to each other when they are not. Tversky and Kahneman clarified that individuals judge relationships based on the ease of envisioning the two events together (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973 ).

Representativeness

The representativeness heuristic is applied when individuals assess the probability that an object belongs to a particular class or category based on how much it resembles the typical case or prototype representing this category (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974 ). Conceptually, this heuristic can be decomposed into three parts. The first one is that the ideal case or prototype of the category is considered representative of the group. The second part judges the similarity between the object and the representative prototype. The third part is that a high degree of similarity indicates a high probability that the object belongs to the category, and a low degree of similarity indicates a low probability.

While the heuristic is often applied automatically within an instant and may be compelling in many cases, Tversky and Kahneman point out that the third part of the heuristic will often lead to serious errors or, at any rate, biases.

In particular, the representativeness heuristic can give rise to what is known as the base rate fallacy. As an example, Tversky and Kahneman consider an individual named Steve, who is described as shy, withdrawn, and somewhat pedantic, and report that people who have to assess, based on this description, whether Steve is more likely to be a librarian or a farmer, invariably consider it more likely that he is a librarian—ignoring the fact that there are many more farmers than librarians, the fact that an estimate of the probability that Steve is a librarian or a farmer, respectively, must take into account.

Another example is that a taxicab was engaged in an accident. The data indicates that 85% of the taxicabs are green and 15% blue. An eyewitness claims that the involved cab was blue. The court then evaluates the witness for reliability because he is 80% accurate and 20% inaccurate. So now, what would be the probability of the involved cab being blue, given that the witness identified it as blue as well?

To evaluate this case correctly, people should consider the base rate, 15% of the cabs being blue, and the witness accuracy rate, 80%. Of course, if the number of cabs is equally split between colours, then the only factor in deciding is the reliability of the witness, which is an 80% probability.

However, regardless of the colours’ distribution, most participants would select 80% to respond to this enquiry. Even participants who wanted to take the base rate into account estimated a probability of more than 50%, while the right answer is 41% using the Bayesian inference (Kahneman, 2011 ).

In relation to the representativeness heuristic, Kahnemann ( 2011 ) illustrated the ‘conjunction fallacy’ in the following example: based only on a detailed description of a character named Linda, doctoral students in the decision science programme of the Stanford Graduate School of Business, all of whom had taken several advanced courses in probability, statistics, and decision theory, were asked to rank various other descriptions of Linda according to their probability. Even Kahneman and Tversky were surprised to find that 85% of the students ranked Linda as a bank teller active in the feminist movement as more likely than Linda as a bank teller.

From these and many other examples, one must conclude that even sophisticated humans use the representativeness heuristic to make probability judgements without referring to what they know about probability.

Representativeness is used to make probability judgements and judgements about causality. The similarity of A and B neither indicates that A causes B nor that B causes A. Nevertheless, if A precedes B and is similar to B, it is often judged to be B’s cause.

Adjustment and anchoring

Based on Tversky and Kahneman’s interpretations, the anchor is the first available number introduced in a question forming the centre of a circle whose radius (up or down) is an acceptable range within which lies the best answer (Baron, 2000 ). This is used and tested in several academic and real-world scenarios and in business negotiations where parties anchor their prices to formulate the range of acceptance through which they can close the deal, deriving the ceiling and floor from the anchor. The impact is more dominant when parties lack time to analyse actions thoroughly.

Significantly, even if the anchor is way beyond logical boundaries, it can still bias the estimated numbers by all parties without them even realizing that it does (Englich et al., 2006 ).

In one of their experiments, Tversky and Kahneman ( 1974 ) asked participants to quickly calculate the product of numbers from 1 to 8 and others to do so from 8 to 1. Since the time was limited to 5 min, they needed to make a guess. The group that started from 1 had an average of 512, while the group that started from 8 had an average of 2250. The right answer was 40,320.

Perhaps this is one of the most unclear cognitive heuristics introduced by Kahneman and Tversky that can be interchangeably considered as a bias instead of a heuristic. The problem is that the mind tends to fixate on the anchor and adjust according to it, whether it was introduced implicitly or explicitly. Some scholars even believe that such bias/heuristic is unavoidable. For instance, in one study, participants were asked if they believed that Mahatma Gandhi died before or after nine years old versus before or after 140 years old. Unquestionably, these anchors were considered unrealistic by the audience. However, when the participants were later asked to give their estimate of Gandhi’s age of death, the group which was anchored to 9 years old speculated the average age to be 50, while the group anchored to the highest value estimated the age of death to be as high as 67 (Strack and Mussweiler, 1997 ).

Gerd Gigerenzer: fast-and-frugal heuristics

The German psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer is one of the most influential figures in the field of decision-making, with a particular emphasis on the use of heuristics. He has built much of his research on the theories of Herbert Simon and considers that Simon’s theory of bounded rationality was unfinished (Gigerenzer, 2015 ). As for Kahneman and Tversky’s work, Gigerenzer has a different approach and challenges their ideas with various arguments, facts, and numbers.

Gigerenzer explores how people make sense of their reality with constrained time and data. Since the world around us is highly uncertain, complex, and volatile, he suggests that probability theory cannot stand as the ultimate concept and is incapable of interpreting everything, particularly when probabilities are unknown. Instead, people tend to use the effortless approach of heuristics. Gigerenzer introduced the concept of the adaptive toolbox, which is a collection of mental shortcuts that a person or group of people can choose from to solve a current problem (Gigerenzer, 2000 ). A heuristic is considered ecologically rational if adjusted to the surrounding ecosystem (Gigerenzer, 2015 ).

A daring argument of Gigerenzer, which very much opposes the heuristics and biases approach of Kahneman and Tversky, is that heuristics cannot be considered irrational or inferior to a solution by optimization or probability calculation. He explicitly argues that heuristics are not gambling shortcuts that are faster but riskier (Gigerenzer, 2008 ), but points to several situations where less is more, meaning that results from frugal heuristics, which neglect some data, were nevertheless more accurate than results achieved by seemingly more elaborate multiple regression or Bayesian methods that try to incorporate all relevant data. While researchers consider this counterintuitive since a basic rule in research seems to be that more data is always better than less, Gigerenzer points out that the less-is-more effect (abbreviated as LIME) could be confirmed by computer simulations. Without denying that in some situations, the effect of using heuristics may be biased (Gigerenzer and Todd, 1999 ), Gigerenzer emphasizes that fast-and-frugal heuristics are basic, task-oriented choice systems that are a part of the decision-maker’s toolbox, the available collection of cognitive techniques for decision-making (Goldstein and Gigerenzer, 2002 ).

Heuristics are considered economical because they are easy to execute, seek limited data, and do not include many calculations. Contrary to most traditional decision-making models followed in the social and behavioural sciences, models of fast-and-frugal heuristics portray not just the result of the process but also the process itself. They comprise three simple building blocks: the search rule that specifies how information is searched for, the stopping rule that specifies when the information search will be stopped, and finally, the decision rule that specifies how the processed information is integrated into a decision (Goldstein and Gigerenzer, 2002 ).

Rather than characterizing heuristics as rules of thumb or mental shortcuts that can cause biases and must therefore be regarded as irrational, Gigerenzer and his co-workers emphasize that fast-and-frugal heuristics are often ecologically rational, even if the conjunction of them may not even be logically consistent (Gigerenzer and Todd, 1999 ).

According to Goldstein and Gigerenzer ( 2002 ), a decision maker’s pool of mental techniques may contain logic and probability theory, but it also embraces a set of simple heuristics. It is compared to a toolbox because just as a wood saw is perfect for cutting wood but useless for cutting glass or hammering a nail into a wall, the ingredients of the adaptive toolbox are intended to tackle specific scenarios.

For instance, there are specific heuristics for choice tasks, estimation tasks, and categorization tasks. In what follows, we will discuss two well-known examples of fast-and-frugal heuristics: the recognition heuristic (RH), which utilizes the absence of data, and the take-the-best heuristic (TTB), which purposely disregards the data.

Both examples of heuristics can be connected to decision assignments and to circumstances in which a decision-maker needs to decide which of two options has a higher reward on a quantitative scale.

Ideal scenarios would be deducing which one of two stock shares will have a better income in the next month, which of two cars is more convenient for a family, or who is a better candidate for a particular job (Goldstein and Gigerenzer, 2002 ).

The recognition heuristic

The recognition heuristic has been examined broadly with the famous experiment to determine which of the two cities has a higher population. This experiment was conducted in 2002, and the participants were undergraduate students: one group in the USA and one in Germany. The question was as follows: which has more occupants—San Diego or San Antonio? Given the cultural difference between the student groups and the level of information regarding American cities, it could be expected that American students would have a higher accuracy rate than their German peers. However, most German students did not even know that San Antonio is an American city (Goldstein and Gigerenzer, 2002 ). Surprisingly, the examiners, Goldstein and Gigerenzer, found the opposite of what was expected. 100% of the German students got the correct answer, while the American students achieved an accuracy rate of around 66%. Remarkably, the German students who had never known about San Antonio had more correct answers. Their lack of knowledge empowered them to utilize the recognition heuristic, which states that if one of two objects is recognized and the other is not, then infer that the recognized object has the higher value concerning the relevant criterion. The American students could not use the recognition heuristic because they were familiar with both cities. Ironically, they knew too much.

The recognition heuristic is an incredible asset. In many cases, it is used for swift decisions since recognition is usually systematic and not arbitrary. Useful applications may be cities’ populations, players’ performance in major leagues, or writers’ level of productivity. However, this heuristic will be less efficient in more difficult scenarios than a city’s population, such as the age of the city’s mayor or its sea-level altitude (Gigerenzer and Todd, 1999 ).

Take-the-best heuristic

When the recognition heuristic is not efficient because the decision-maker has enough information about both options, another important heuristic can be used that relies on hints or cues to arrive at a decision. The take-the-best (TTB) heuristic is a heuristic that relies only on specific cues or signals and does not require any complex calculations. In practice, it often boils down to a one-reason decision rule, a type of heuristic where judgements are based on a single good reason only, ignoring other cues (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011 ). According to the TTB heuristic, a decision-maker evaluates the case by selecting the attributes which are important to him and sorts these cues by importance to create a hierarchy for the decision to be taken. Then alternatives are compared according to the first, i.e., the most important, cue; if an alternative is the best according to the first cue, the decision is taken. Otherwise, the decision-maker moves to the next layer and checks that level of cues. In other words, the decision is based on the most important attribute that allows one to discriminate between the alternatives (Gigerenzer and Goldstein, 1996 ). Although this lexicographic preference ordering is well known from traditional economic theory, it appears there mainly to provide a counterexample to the existence of a real-valued utility function (Debreu, 1959 ). Surprisingly, however, it seems to be used in many critical situations. For example, in many airports, the customs officials may decide if a traveller is chosen for a further check by looking only at the most important attributes, such as the city of departure, nationality, or luggage weight (Pachur and Marinello, 2013 ). Moreover, in 2012, a study explored voters’ views of how US presidential competitors would deal with the single issue that voters viewed as most significant, for example, the state of the economy or foreign policy. A model dependent on this attribute picked the winner in most cases (Graefe and Armstrong, 2012 ).

However, the TTB heuristic has a stopping rule applied when the search reaches a discriminating cue. So, if the most important signal discriminates, there is no need to continue searching for other cues, and only one signal is considered. Otherwise, the next most important signal will be considered. If no discriminating signal is found, the heuristic will need to make a random guess (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011 ).

Empirical evidence on fast-and-frugal heuristics

More studies have been conducted on fast-and-frugal heuristics using analytical methods and simulations to investigate when and why heuristics yield accurate results on the one hand, and on the other hand, using experiments and observational methods to find out whether and when people use fast-and-frugal heuristics (Luan et al., 2019 ). Structured examinations and benchmarking with standard models, for example, regression or Bayesian models, have shown that the accuracy of fast-and-frugal heuristics relies upon the structure of the information environment (e.g., the distribution of signal validities, the interrelation between signals, etc.). In numerous situations, fast-and-frugal heuristics can perform well, particularly in generalized contexts, when making predictions for new cases that have not been previously experienced. Empirical examinations show that people utilize fast-and-frugal heuristics under a time constraint when data is hard to obtain or must be retrieved from memory. Remarkably, some studies have inspected how individuals adjust to various situations by learning. Rieskamp and Otto ( 2006 ) found that individuals seemingly learn to choose the heuristic that has the best performance in a specific domain. Nevertheless, Reimer and Katsikopoulos ( 2004 ) found that individuals apply fast-and-frugal heuristics when making inferences in groups.

While interest in heuristics has been increasing, some of the literature has been mostly critical. In particular, the heuristics and biases programme introduced by Kahneman and Tversky has been the target of more than one critique (Reisberg, 2013 ).

The arguments are mainly in two directions. The first is that the main focus is on the coherence standards such as rationality and that the detection of biases ignores the context-environmental factors where the judgements occur (B.R. Newell, 2013 ). The second is that notions such as availability or representativeness are vague and undefined, and state little regarding the procedures’ hidden judgements (Gigerenzer, 1996 ). For example, it has been argued that the replies in the acclaimed Linda-the-bank-teller experiment could be considered sensible instead of biased if one uses conversational or colloquial standards instead of formal probability theory (Hilton, 1995 ).

The argument of having a vague explanation for certain phenomena can be illustrated when considering the following two scenarios. People tend to believe that an opposite outcome will be achieved after having a stream of the same outcome (e.g., people tend to believe that ‘heads’ should be the next outcome in a coin-flipping game with many consecutive ‘tails’). This is called the gambler fallacy (Barron and Leider, 2010 ). By contrast, the hot-hand fallacy (Gilovich et al., 1985 ) argues that people tend to believe that a stream of the same outcome will continue when there is a lucky day (e.g., a player is taking a shot in a sport such as a basketball after a series of successful attempts). Ayton and Fisher ( 2004 ) argued that, although these two practices are quite opposite, they have both been classified under the heuristic of representativeness. In the two cases, a flawed idea of random events drives observers to anticipate that a certain stream of results is representative of the whole procedure. In the first scenario of coin flipping, people tend to believe that a long stream of tails should not occur; hence the head is predicted. While in the case of the sports player, the stream of the same outcome is expected to continue (Gilovich et al., 1985 ). Therefore, representativeness cannot be diagnosed without considering in advance the expected results. Also, the heuristic does not clarify why people have the urge to believe that a stream of random events should have a representative, while in real life, it does not (Ayton and Fischer, 2004 ).

Nevertheless, the most common critique of Kahneman and Tversky is the idea that ‘we cannot be that dumb’. It states that the heuristics and biases programme is overly pessimistic when assessing the average human decision-making. Also, humans collectively have accumulated many achievements and discoveries throughout human history that would not have been possible if their ability to adequate decision-making had been so limited (Gilovich and Griffin, 2002 ).

Similarly, the probabilistic mental models (PMM) theory of human inference inspired by Simon and pioneered by Gigerenzer has also been exposed to criticism (B.R. Newell et al., 2003 ). Indeed, the enticing character of heuristics that they are both easy to apply and efficient has made them famous within different domains. However, it has also made them vulnerable to replications or variations of the experiments that challenge the original results. For example, Daniel Oppenheimer ( 2003 ) argues that the recognition heuristic (RH) could not yield satisfactory results after replicating the experiment of city populations. He claims that the participants’ judgements failed to obey the RH not just when there were cues other and stronger than mere recognition but also in circumstances where recognition would have been the best cue available. In any case, one could claim that there are numerous methods in the adaptive toolbox and that under certain conditions, people may prefer to use heuristics other than the RH. However, this statement is also questionable since many heuristics that are thought to exist in the adaptive toolbox acknowledge the RH as an initial step (Gigerenzer and Todd, 1999 ). Hence, if individuals are not using the RH, they cannot use many of the other heuristics in the adaptive toolbox (Oppenheimer, 2003 ). Likewise, Newell et al. ( 2003 ) question whether the fast-and-frugal heuristics accurately explain actual human behaviour. In two experiments, they challenged the take-the-best (TTB) heuristic, as it is considered a building block in the PMM framework. The outcomes of these experiments, together with others, such as those of Jones et al. ( 2000 ) and Bröder ( 2000 ), show that the TTB heuristic is not a reliable approach even within circumstances favouring its use. In a somewhat heated debate published in the Psychological Review 1996, Gigerenzer’s criticism of Kahneman and Tversky that many of the so-called biases ‘disappear’ if frequencies rather than probabilities are assumed, was countered by Kahneman and Tversky ( 1996 ) by means of a detailed re-examination of the conjunction fallacy (or Linda Problem). Gigerenzer ( 1996 ) remained unconvinced, and was in turn, blamed by Kahneman and Tversky ( 1996 , p. 591) for just reiterating ‘his objections … without answering our main arguments’.

Our historical review has revealed a number of issues that have received little attention in the literature.

Deliberate vs. automatic heuristics

We have differentiated between deliberate and automatic heuristics, which often seem to be confused in the literature. While it is a widely shared view today that the human brain often relies heavily on the fast and effortless ‘System 1’ in decision-making, but can also use the more demanding tools of ‘System 2’, and it has been acknowledged, e.g. by Kahneman ( 2011 , p. 98), that some heuristics belong to System 1 and others to System 2, the two systems are not as clearly distinct as it may seem. In fact, the very wide range of what one may call ‘heuristics’ shows that there is a whole spectrum of fallible decision-making procedures—ranging from the probably innate problem-solving strategy of the baby that cries whenever it is hungry or has some other problem, to the most elaborate and sophisticated procedures of, e.g., Polya, Bolzano, or contemporary chess-engines. One may be tempted to characterize instinctive procedures as subconscious and sophisticated ones as conscious, but a deliberate heuristic can very well become a subconsciously applied ‘habit of the mind’ or learnt routine with experience and repetition. Vice versa, automatic, subconscious heuristics can well be raised to consciousness and be applied deliberately. E.g., the ‘inductive inference’ from tasty strawberries to the assumption that all red berries are sweet and edible may be quite automatic and subconscious in little children, but the philosophical literature on induction shows that it can be elaborated into something quite conscious. However, while the notion of consciousness may be crucial for an adequate understanding of heuristics in human cognition, for the time being, it seems to remain a philosophical mystery (Harley, 2021 ; Searle, 1997 ), and once programmed, sophisticated heuristic algorithms can be executed by automata.

The deliberate heuristics that we reviewed also illustrate that some of them can hardly be called ‘simple’, ‘shortcuts’, or ‘rules of thumb’. E.g., the heuristics of Descartes, Bolzano, or Polya each consist of a structured set of suggestions, and, e.g., ‘to devise a plan’ for a mathematical proof is certainly not a shortcut. Llull ( 1308 , p. 329), to take another example, wrote of his ‘ars magna’ that ‘the best kind of intellect can learn it in two months: one month for theory and another month for practice’.

Heuristics vs. algorithms

Our review of heuristics also allowed us to clarify the distinction between heuristics and algorithms. As evidenced by our glimpse at computer science, there are procedures that are quite obviously both an algorithm and a heuristic. Within computer science, they are in fact quite common. Algorithms of the heuristic type may be required for certain problems even though an algorithm that finds the optimal solution exists ‘in principle’—as in the case of determining the optimal strategy in chess, where the brute-force-method to enumerate all possible plays of chess is just not practically feasible. In other cases, heuristic algorithms are used because an exhaustive search, while practically feasible, would be too costly or time-consuming. Clearly, for many problems, there are also problem-solving algorithms which always do produce the optimal solution in a reasonable time frame. Given our definition of a heuristic as a fallible method, algorithms of this kind are counterexamples to the complaint that the notion has become so wide that ‘any procedure can be called a heuristic’. However, as we have seen, there are also heuristic procedures that are non-algorithmic. These may be necessary either because the problem to be solved is not sufficiently well-defined to allow for an algorithm, or because an algorithm that would solve the problem at hand, is not known or does not exist. Kleining’s qualitative heuristics is an example of non-algorithmic heuristics necessitated by the ill-defined problems of research in the social sciences, while Polya’s heuristic for solving mathematical problems is an example of the latter: an algorithm that would allow one to decide if a given mathematical conjecture is a theorem or not does not exist (cf. Davis, 1965 ).

Pre-SEU vs. post-SEU heuristics

As we noted in the introduction, the emergence of the SEU theory can be regarded as a kind of watershed for the research on heuristics, as it came to be regarded as the standard definition of rational choice. Post-SEU, fallible methods of decision-making would have to face comparison with this standard. Gigerenzer’s almost belligerent criticism of SEU shows that even today it seems difficult to discuss the pros and cons of heuristics unless one relates them to the backdrop of SEU. However, his criticism of SEU is mostly en passant and seems to assume that the SEU model requires ‘known probabilities’ (e.g., Gigerenzer, 2021 ), ignoring the fact that it is, in general, subjective probabilities, as derived from the agent’s preferences among lotteries, that the model relies on (cf. e.g., Jeffrey, 1967 or Gilboa, 2011 ). In fact, when applied to an ill-defined decision problem in, e.g., management, the SEU theory may well be regarded as a heuristic—it asks you to consider the possible consequences of the relevant set of actions, your preferences among those consequences, and the likelihood of those consequences. To the extent that one may get all of these elements wrong, SEU is a fallible method of decision-making. To be sure, it is not a fast and effortless heuristic, but our historical review of pre-SEU heuristics has illustrated that heuristics may be quite elaborate and require considerable effort and attention.

It is quite true, of course, that the SEU heuristic will hardly be helpful in problem-solving that is not ‘just’ decision-making. If, e.g., the problem to be solved is to find a proof for a mathematical conjecture, the set of possible actions will in general be too vast to be practically contemplated, let alone evaluated according to preferences and probabilities.

Positive vs. negative heuristics

To the extent that the study of heuristics aims at understanding how decisions are actually made, it is not only positive heuristics that need to be considered. It will also be required to investigate the conditions that may prevent the agent from adopting certain courses of action. As we saw, Lakatos used the notion of negative heuristics quite explicitly to characterize research programmes, but we also briefly review Duncker’s notion of ‘functional fixedness’ as an example of a hindrance to adequate problem-solving. A systematic study of such negative heuristics seems to be missing in the literature and we believe that it may be a helpful complement to the study of positive heuristics which has dominated the literature that we reviewed.

To the extent that heuristics are studied with the normative aim of identifying effective heuristics, it may also be useful to consider approaches that should not be taken. ‘Do not try to optimize!’ might be a negative heuristic favoured by the fast-and-frugal school of thought.

Heuristics as the product of evolution

Clearly, heuristics have always existed throughout the development of human knowledge due to the ‘old mind’s’ evolutionary roots and the frequent necessity to apply fast and sufficiently reliable behaviour patterns. However, unlike the behaviour patterns in the other animals, the methods used by humans in problem-solving are sufficiently diverse that the dual-process theory was suggested to provide some structure to the rich ‘toolbox’ humans can and do apply. As all our human DNA is the product of evolution, it is not only the intuitive inclinations to react to certain stimuli in a particular way that must be seen as the product of evolution, but also our ability to abstain from following our gut feelings when there is reason to do so, to reflect and analyse the situation before we embark on a particular course of action. Quite frequently, we experience a tension between our intuitive inclinations and our analytic mind’s judgement, but both of them are somehow the product of evolution, our biography, and the environment. Thus, to point out that gut feelings are an evolved capacity of the brain does in no way provide an argument that would support their superiority over the reflective mind.

Moreover, compared to the speed of problem change in our human lifetimes, biological evolution is very slow. The evolved capacities of the human brain may have been well-adapted to the survival needs of our ancestors some 300,000 years ago, but there is little reason to believe that they are uniformly well-adapted to human problem-solving in the 21st century.

Resource-bounded and ecological rationality

Throughout our review, the reader will have noticed that many heuristics have been suggested for specific problem areas. The methods of the ancient Greeks were mainly centred around solving geometrical problems. Llull was primarily concerned with theological questions, Descartes and Leibniz pursued ‘mechanical’ solutions to philosophical issues, Polya suggested heuristics for Mathematics, Müller for engineering, and Kleining for social science research. This already suggests that heuristics suitable for one type of problem need not be suitable for a different type. Likewise, the automatic heuristics that both the Kahneman-Tversky and the Gigerenzer schools focused on, are triggered by particular tasks. Simon’s observation that the success of a given heuristic will depend on the environment in which it is employed, is undoubtedly an important one that has motivated Gigerenzer’s notion of ecological rationality and is strikingly absent from the SEU model. If ‘environment’ is taken in a broad sense that includes the available resources, the cost of time and effort, the notion seems to cover what has been called resource-rational behaviour (e.g., Bhui et al., 2021 ).

Avenues of further research

A comprehensive study describing the current status of the research on heuristics and their relation to SEU seems to be missing and is beyond the scope of our brief historical review. Insights into their interrelationship can be expected from recent attempts at formal modelling of human cognition that take the issues of limited computational resources and context-dependence of decision-making seriously. E.g., Lieder and Griffiths ( 2020 ) do this from a Bayesian perspective, while Busemeyer et al. ( 2011 ) and Pothos and Busemeyer ( 2022 ) use a generalization of standard Kolmogorov probability theory that is also the basis of quantum mechanics and quantum computation. While it may seem at first glance that such modelling assumes even more computational power than the standard SEU model of decision-making, the computational power is not assumed on the part of the human decision-maker. Rather, the claim is that the decision-maker behaves as if s/he would solve an optimization problem under additional constraints, e.g., on computational resources. The ‘as if’ methodology that is employed here is well-known to economists (Friedman, 1953 ; Mäki, 1998 ) and also to mathematical biologists who have used Bayesian models to explain animal behaviour (McNamara et al., 2006 ; Oaten, 1977 ; Pérez-Escudero and de Polavieja, 2011 ). Evolutionary arguments might be invoked to support this methodology if a survival disadvantage can be shown to result from behaviour patterns that are not Bayesian optimal, but we are not aware of research that would substantiate such arguments. However, attempting to do so by embedding formal models of cognition in models of evolutionary game theory may be a promising avenue for further research.

NP stands for ‘nondeterministic polynomial-time’, which indicates that the optimal solution can be found by a nondeterministic Turing-machine in a running time that is bounded by a polynomial function of the input size. In fact, the TSP is ‘NP-hard’ which means that it is ‘at least as hard as the hardest problems in the category of NP problems’.

Agre P, Horswill I (1997) Lifeworld analysis. J Artif Intell Res 6:111–145

Article   Google Scholar  

Ayton P, Fischer I (2004) The hot hand fallacy and the gambler’s fallacy. Two faces of subjective randomness. Memory Cogn 32:8

Banse G, Friedrich K (2000) Konstruieren zwischen Kunst und Wissenschaft. Edition Sigma, Idee‐Entwurf‐Gestaltung, Berlin

Google Scholar  

Baron J (2000) Thinking and deciding. Cambridge University Press

Barron G, Leider S (2010) The role of experience in the Gambler’s Fallacy. J Behav Decision Mak 23:1

Barros G (2010) Herbert A Simon and the concept of rationality: boundaries and procedures. Brazilian. J Political Econ 30:3

Baumeister RF, Vohs KD (2007) Encyclopedia of social psychology, vol 1. SAGE

Bazerman MH, Moore DA (1994) Judgment in managerial decision making. Wiley, New York

Bentley JL (1982) Writing efficient programs Prentice-Hall software series. Prentice-Hall

Bhui R, Lai L, Gershman S (2021) Resource-rational decision making. Curr Opin Behav Sci 41:15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.015

Bolzano B (1837) Wissenschaftslehre. Seidelsche Buchhandlung, Sulzbach

Bossaerts P, Murawski C (2017) Computational complexity and human decision-making. Trends Cogn Sci 21(12):917–929

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Boyer CB (1991) The Arabic Hegemony. A History of Mathematics. Wiley, New York

Bröder A (2000) Assessing the empirical validity of the “Take-the-best” heuristic as a model of human probabilistic inference. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 26:5

Burke E, Kendall G, Newall J, Hart E, Ross P, Schulenburg S (2003) Hyper-heuristics: an emerging direction in modern search technology. In: Glover F, Kochenberger GA (eds) Handbook of metaheuristics. International series in operations research & management science, vol 57. Springer, Boston, MA

Busemeyer JR, Pothos EM, Franco R, Trueblood JS (2011) A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychol Rev 118(2):193

Buss DM, Kenrick DT (1998) Evolutionary social psychology. In: D T Gilbert, S T Fiske, G Lindzey (eds.), The handbook of social psychology. McGraw-Hill, p. 982–1026

Byron M (1998) Satisficing and optimality. Ethics 109:1

Davis M (ed) (1965) The undecidable. Basic papers on undecidable propositions, unsolvable problems and computable functions. Raven Press, New York

MATH   Google Scholar  

Debreu G (1959) Theory of value: an axiomatic analysis of economic equilibrium. Yale University Press

Descartes R (1908) Rules for the Direction of the Mind. In: Oeuvres de Descartes, vol 10. In: Adam C, Tannery P (eds). J Vrin, Paris

Descartes R (1998) Discourse on the method for conducting one’s reason well and for seeking the truth in the sciences (1637) (trans and ed: Cress D). Hackett, Indianapolis

Dunbar RIM (1998) Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Harvard University Press

Duncker K (1935) Zur Psychologie des produktiven Denkens. Springer

Englich B, Mussweiler T, Strack F (2006) Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 32:2

Evans JSB (2010) Thinking twice: two minds in one brain. Oxford University Press

Farr RM (1996) The roots of modern social psychology, 1872–1954. Blackwell Publishing

Farris PW, Bendle N, Pfeifer P, Reibstein D (2010) Marketing metrics: the definitive guide to measuring marketing performance. Pearson Education

Fidora A, Sierra C (2011) Ramon Llull, from the Ars Magna to artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence Research Institute, Barcelona

Frantz R (2003) Herbert Simon Artificial intelligence as a framework for understanding intuition. J Econ Psychol 24:2. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00207-6

Friedman M (1953) The methodology of positive economics. In: Friedman M (ed) Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press

Ghiselin MT (1973) Darwin and evolutionary psychology. Science (New York, NY) 179:4077

Gibbons A (2007) Paleoanthropology. Food for thought. Science (New York, NY) 316:5831

Gigerenzer G (1996) On narrow norms and vague heuristics: a reply to Kahneman and Tversky. 1939–1471

Gigerenzer G (2000) Adaptive thinking: rationality in the real world. Oxford University Press, USA

Gigerenzer G (2008) Why heuristics work. Perspect Psychol Sci 3:1

Gigerenzer G (2015) Simply rational: decision making in the real world. Evol Cogn

Gigerenzer G (2021) Embodied heuristics. Front Psychol https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.711289

Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology 62, p 451–482

Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev 103:4

Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) (2001) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press

Gigerenzer G, Todd PM (1999) Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press, USA

Gilboa I (2011) Making better decisions. Decision theory in practice. Wiley-Blackwell

Gilovich T, Griffin D (2002) Introduction—heuristics and biases: then and now in heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment (8). Cambridge University Press

Gilovich T, Vallone R, Tversky A (1985) The hot hand in basketball: on the misperception of random sequences. Cogn Psychol 17:3

Glaveanu VP (2019) The creativity reader. Oxford University Press

Glover F, Kochenberger GA (eds) (2003) Handbook of metaheuristics. International series in operations research & management science, vol 57. Springer, Boston, MA

Goldstein DG, Gigerenzer G (2002) Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychol Rev 109:1

Graefe A, Armstrong JS (2012) Predicting elections from the most important issue: a test of the take-the-best heuristic. J Behav Decision Mak 25:1

Groner M, Groner R, Bischof WF (1983) Approaches to heuristics: a historical review. In: Groner R, Groner M, Bischof WF (eds) Methods of heuristics. Erlbaum

Groner R, Groner M (1991) Heuristische versus algorithmische Orientierung als Dimension des individuellen kognitiven Stils. In: Grawe K, Semmer N, Hänni R (Hrsg) Üher die richtige Art, Psychologie zu betreiben. Hogrefe, Göttingen

Gugerty L (2006) Newell and Simon’s logic theorist: historical background and impact on cognitive modelling. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Symposium conducted at the meeting of SAGE Publications. Sage, Los Angeles, CA

Harel D (2000) Computers Ltd: what they really can’t do. Oxford University Press

Harley TA (2021) The science of consciousness: waking, sleeping and dreaming. Cambridge University Press

Harris B (1979) Whatever happened to little Albert? Am Psychol 34:2

Heath TL (1926) The thirteen books of Euclid’s elements. Introduction to vol I, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press

Hertwig R, Pachur T (2015) Heuristics, history of. In: International encyclopedia of the social behavioural sciences. Elsevier, pp. 829–835

Hilton DJ (1995) The social context of reasoning: conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychol Bull 118:2

Hopcroft JE, Motwani R, Ullman JD (2007) Introduction to Automata Theory, languages, and computation. Addison Wesley, Boston/San Francisco/New York

Jeffrey R (1967) The logic of decision, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill

Jones S, Juslin P, Olsson H, Winman A (2000) Algorithm, heuristic or exemplar: Process and representation in multiple-cue judgment. In: Proceedings of the 22nd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farar, Straus and Giroux

Kahneman D, Klein G (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol 64:6

Kahneman D, Tversky A (1996) On the reality of cognitive illusions. In: Psychological Review, 103(3), p 582–591

Khaldun I (1967) The Muqaddimah. An introduction to history (trans: Arabic by Rosenthal F). Abridged and edited by Dawood NJ. Princeton University Press

Klein G (2001) The fiction of optimization. In: Gigerenzer G, Selten R (eds) Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. MIT Press Editors

Kleining G (1982) Umriss zu einer Methodologie qualitativer Sozialforschung. Kölner Z Soziol Sozialpsychol 34:2

Kleining G (1995) Von der Hermeneutik zur qualitativen Heuristik. Beltz

Lakatos I (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press

Leibniz GW (1880) Die Philosophischen Schriften von GW Leibniz IV, hrsg von CI Gerhardt

Lerner RM (1978) Nature Nurture and Dynamic Interactionism. Human Development 21(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271572

Lieder F, Griffiths TL (2020) Resource-rational analysis: understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Vol 43, e1. Cambridge University Press

Link D (2010) Scrambling TRUTH: rotating letters as a material form of thought. Variantology 4, p. 215–266

Llull R (1308) Ars Generalis Ultima (trans: Dambergs Y), Yanis Dambergs, https://lullianarts.narpan.net/

Luan S, Reb J, Gigerenzer G (2019) Ecological rationality: fast-and-frugal heuristics for managerial decision-making under uncertainty. Acad Manag J 62:6

Mäki U (1998) As if. In: Davis J, Hands DW, Mäki U (ed) The handbook of economic methodology. Edward Elgar Publishing

Martí R, Pardalos P, Resende M (eds) (2018) Handbook of heuristics. Springer, Cham

McDougall W (2015) An introduction to social psychology. Psychology Press

McNamara JM, Green RF, Olsson O (2006) Bayes’ theorem and its applications in animal behaviour. Oikos 112(2):243–251. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3548663

Newborn M (1997) Kasparov versus Deep Blue: computer chess comes of age. Springer

Newell A, Shaw JC, Simon HA (1959) Report on a general problem-solving program. In: R. Oldenbourg (ed) IFIP congress. UNESCO, Paris

Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Newell BR (2013) Judgment under uncertainty. In: Reisberg D (ed) The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford University Press

Newell BR, Weston NJ, Shanks DR (2003) Empirical tests of a fast-and-frugal heuristic: not everyone “takes the best”. Organ Behav Hum Decision Processes 91:1

Oaten A (1977) Optimal foraging in patches: a case for stochasticity. Theor Popul Biol 12(3):263–285

Article   MathSciNet   CAS   PubMed   MATH   Google Scholar  

Oppenheimer DM (2003) Not so fast! (and not so frugal!): rethinking the recognition heuristic. Cognition 90:1

Pachur T, Marinello G (2013) Expert intuitions: how to model the decision strategies of airport customs officers? Acta Psychol 144:1

Pearl J (1984) Heuristics: intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co, Inc

Pérez-Escudero A, de Polavieja G (2011) Collective animal behaviour from Bayesian estimation and probability matching. Nature Precedings

Pinheiro CAR, McNeill F (2014) Heuristics in analytics: a practical perspective of what influences our analytical world. Wiley Online Library

Polya G (1945) How to solve it. Princeton University Press

Polya G (1954) Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton University Press

Pombo O (2002) Leibniz and the encyclopaedic project. In: Actas do Congresso Internacional Ciência, Tecnologia Y Bien Comun: La atualidad de Leibniz

Pothos EM, Busemeyer JR (2022) Quantum cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 73:749–778

Priest G (2008) An introduction to non-classical logic: from if to is. Cambridge University Press

Book   MATH   Google Scholar  

Ramsey FP (1926) Truth and probability. In: Braithwaite RB (ed) The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hay:hetcha:ramsey1926

Reimer T, Katsikopoulos K (2004) The use of recognition in group decision-making. Cogn Sci 28:6

Reisberg D (ed) (2013) The Oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford University Press

Rieskamp J, Otto PE (2006) SSL: a theory of how people learn to select strategies. J Exp Psychol Gen 135:2

Ritchey T (2022) Ramon Llull and the combinatorial art. https://www.swemorph.com/amg/pdf/ars-morph-1-draft-ch-4.pdf

Ritter J, Gründer K, Gabriel G, Schepers H (2017) Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie online. Schwabe Verlag

Russell SJ, Norvig P, Davis E (2010) Artificial intelligence: a modern approach, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall series in artificial intelligence. Prentice-Hall

Savage LJ (ed) (1954) The foundations of statistics. Courier Corporation

Schacter D, Gilbert D, Wegner D (2011) Psychology, 2nd edn. Worth

Schaeffer J, Burch N, Bjornsson Y, Kishimoto A, Muller M, Lake R, Lu P, Sutphen S (2007) Checkers is solved. Science 317(5844):1518–1522

Article   ADS   MathSciNet   CAS   PubMed   MATH   Google Scholar  

Schreurs BG (1989) Classical conditioning of model systems: a behavioural review. Psychobiology 17:2

Scopus (2022) Search “heuristics”. https://www.scopus.com/standard/marketing.uri (TITLE-ABS-KEY(heuristic) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,"DECI") OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,"SOCI") OR LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA,"BUSI"))) Accessed on 16 Apr 2022

Searle JR (1997) The mystery of consciousness. Granta Books

Semaan G, Coelho J, Silva E, Fadel A, Ochi L, Maculan N (2020) A brief history of heuristics: from Bounded Rationality to Intractability. IEEE Latin Am Trans 18(11):1975–1986. https://latamt.ieeer9.org/index.php/transactions/article/view/3970/682

Sen S (2020) The environment in evolution: Darwinism and Lamarckism revisited. Harvest Volume 1(2):84–88. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3537393

Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM (2008) Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychol Bull 134:2

Siitonen A (2014) Bolzano on finding out intentions behind actions. In: From the ALWS archives: a selection of papers from the International Wittgenstein Symposia in Kirchberg am Wechsel

Simon HA (1955) A behavioural model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69:1

Simon HA, Newell A (1958) Heuristic problem solving: the next advance in operations research. Oper Res 6(1):1–10. http://www.jstor.org/stable/167397

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Smith R (2020) Aristotle’s logic. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, 2020th edn. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University

Smulders TV (2009) Darwin 200: special feature on brain evolution. Biology Letters 5(1), p. 105–107

Sörensen K, Sevaux M, Glover F (2018) A history of metaheuristics. In: Martí R, Pardalos P, Resende M (eds) Handbook of heuristics. Springer, Cham

Stephenson N (2003) Theoretical psychology: critical contributions. Captus Press

Strack F, Mussweiler T (1997) Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: mechanisms of selective accessibility. J Person Soc Psychol 73:3

Sullivan D (2002) How search engines work. SEARCH ENGINE WATCH, at http://www.searchenginewatch.com/webmasters/work.Html (Last Updated June 26, 2001) (on File with the New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy). http://www.searchenginewatch.com

Suppes P (1983) Heuristics and the axiomatic method. In: Groner R et al (ed) Methods of Heuristics. Routledge

Turing A (1937) On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proc Lond Math Soc s2-42(1):230–265

Article   MathSciNet   MATH   Google Scholar  

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cogn Psychol 5:2

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science (New York, NY) 185::4157

Vardi MY (2012) Artificial intelligence: past and future. Commun ACM 55:1

Vikhar PA (2016) Evolutionary algorithms: a critical review and its future prospects. Paper presented at the international conference on global trends in signal processing, information computing and communication (ICGTSPICC). IEEE, pp. 261–265

Volz V, Rudolph G, Naujoks B (2016) Demonstrating the feasibility of automatic game balancing. Paper presented at the proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, pp. 269–276

von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p. 1947

Zermelo E (1913) Über eine Anwendung der Mengenlehre auf die Theorie des Schachspiels. In: Proceedings of the fifth international congress of mathematicians. Symposium conducted at the meeting of Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Zilio D (2013) Filling the gaps: skinner on the role of neuroscience in the explanation of behavior. Behavior and Philosophy, 41, p. 33–59

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the reviewers for their valuable time and effort in reviewing our work. Their insightful comments and suggestions have greatly improved the quality of our manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Leipzig, Germany

Mohamad Hjeij & Arnis Vilks

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamad Hjeij .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hjeij, M., Vilks, A. A brief history of heuristics: how did research on heuristics evolve?. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 64 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01542-z

Download citation

Received : 25 July 2022

Accepted : 30 January 2023

Published : 17 February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01542-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Socialisation approach to ai value acquisition: enabling flexible ethical navigation with built-in receptiveness to social influence.

• Joel Janhonen

AI and Ethics (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Jul 5, 2021

Problem-Solving Steps that Actually Work

Updated: Mar 6, 2023

Whenever our students encounter problems, it can be a tricky situation. On one hand, I get super excited about the idea of my students THINKING about everything they know to solve the problem. I love watching their brains work while they access that filing cabinet in their brain of math information and pull out the information to solve a challenging problem.

On the other hand, that same process can become a brick wall when it becomes too overwhelming. Students can shut down and refuse to move. They can cry and become frustrated. These same students can then begin believing they are just not good at math from this point forward.

That's a lot of pressure from a simple math problem.

If you haven't read Jo Boaler's Mathematical Mindsets, I strongly suggest it as a way to begin helping our students see math learning with a growth mindset. It's a helpful guide in teaching our students and ourselves that knowledge is something that grows and is not fixed. It is based on Carol Dweck's work with Growth Mindsets from Mindset: The New Psychology of Success . (Another great read in helping children as a parent, teacher or coach.)

So what do we do? Instead of bombarding our students with several strategies to make problem-solving easier, I think it's important to boil it down to the basics. What strategies can I give my students that help them with all problems? What's something that's easy for them to remember and recall? What's something that would give them confidence moving forward?

Enter in Polya's Problem-Solving Method by George Polya who was known as the father of problem solving. These four steps sum up everything our students need to solve problems successfully. They are easy to remember and easy to implement.

(This post does contain affiliate links.)

Understand the Problem: This is the focus on comprehension. What is the problem asking me to do? What do I know from reading the problem? What can I comprehend?

Plan: This is the time where students think about how they want to move forward. Before solving with mathematics, we want our students to determine what steps they should take.

Solve : This is where students do the math. They follow the steps in their plan and work out the problem.

Look Back: Now we want students to look back and see that their answer makes sense. We want them to check the answer using estimation or even by trying to solve it in another way.

Four steps...that's totally manageable right? I love the simplicity of it all and even find that it carries over to all aspects of our life when solving real-life problems.

Now that students have a way to solve problems, it's time to give them the tools to make a plan that will work. I've been talking about Singapore's heuristics in my Member's Facebook group, and I wanted to share some of those with you. Stay tuned in the next few weeks to learn about the heuristics and how these strategies help students determine a meaningful plan to solve problems.

In the meantime, be sure to grab your problem-solving poster by clicking below!

• K-2 Free Math Resources
• Grades 3-6 Free Math Resources

Recent Posts

Great Big List of Math Literature

Math Literature: Goodnight Numbers and a Digital Freebie

Math Literature: The Action of Subtraction

Thanks for submitting!

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.3.1: George Polya's Four Step Problem Solving Process

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 90483

Step 1: Understand the Problem

• Do you understand all the words?
• Can you restate the problem in your own words?
• Do you know what is given?
• Do you know what the goal is?
• Is there enough information?
• Is there extraneous information?
• Is this problem similar to another problem you have solved?

Step 2: Devise a Plan: Below are some strategies one might use to solve a problem. Can one (or more) of the following strategies be used? (A strategy is defined as an artful means to an end.)

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Alex Osborn – Father of Brainstorming and Method of Creative Problem Solving

Achievements and contributions:

Social and professional position: Alex F. Osborn was an American advertising pioneer and executive, author, psychologist and consultant, lecturer, teacher and painter. The main contribution (Best Known for): Alex F. Osborn is best known for his contribution to the development of the field of creative thinking and creative problem-solving. Alex Osborn has been labelled as the “father of brainstorming”. He founded and managed an advertising agency (BBDO) which became one of the leading advertising agencies in the world. He also co-authored the CPS (Creative Problem Solving Process) , a six-step creative problem-solving methodology developed with Dr. Sidney Parnes He has contributed to the popularization of creative thinking techniques and their application in various fields, including business, education and scientific research. His contributions to the field of creativity continue to influence scholars and practitioners today, and his ideas about the power of brainstorming and other creative techniques have become widely recognized as important tools for problem-solving and innovation.

Major Contribution to the Theory of Creativity, Applied Creativity and Advertising

1. creating and advancing the brainstorming technique.

Osborn’s major accomplishments include the development of the creativity technique named brainstorming. In 1942, Osborn introduced this concept of “thinking up” in his work How to Think Up which was a precursor to the brainstorming process that he later created. He first mentioned the term brainstorming in this book. Osborn outlined his method in the subsequent book Your Creative Power (1948). In this book, he first defined “Brainstorming” as using the brain to storm a creative problem in a commando fashion. This technique emphasized the importance of suspending judgment, encouraging unconventional thinking, and building upon the ideas of others. The success of his creative-process methodologies led to the publication of several creative thinking and problem-solving books, most notably “Applied Imagination.” Released in 1953, this book introduced the Creative Problem-Solving process to the world. In literature related to the creative process, Applied Imagination remains one of the most frequently cited books on this topic. In this book, he described the process of brainstorming as a group creativity technique. He suggested that a group of people could generate more ideas than an individual working alone. The key to brainstorming was to generate as many ideas as possible without criticism or evaluation. Osborn adhered to the fact that “the more ideas you think up, the more likely you are to arrive at the potentially best leads to solution” (Osborn, 1953). This technique is based on the following two ideas: 1. Separation of the imaginative mind and the judicial mind. The first is able to generate, visualize and foresee ideas and the second takes care of analyzing and selecting ideas. 2. Principle of suspending judgment.  This principle focuses on the belief that deferment of judgment during ideation keeps the critical faculty from jamming the creative faculty and is key to imaginative success. (1962) Osborn (1955) introduced the concept that provides two separate sessions where the first session allows for ideas to flourish and the second session where decisions are made on the ideas produced. Osborn proposed let’s try to act as if we were two people – at one time, a thinker upper, a producer of ideas; at another, a weigher of ideas” Besides, Osborn elaborated on his deferred judgment principle to suggest the notion that quantity will breed quality. He proposed two fundamental principles that contribute to “ideative efficacy”: 1. Defer judgment about the ideas. 2. Reach for quantity, which breeds quality

Later, Osborn revised the brainstorming process and introduced four basic rules: 1. Quantity of ideas is wanted. Generate as many ideas as possible 2. Withhold criticism . No one was to criticize an idea. 3. Welcome wild ideas.  Stretch to create freewheeling and unusual ideas. 4. Combine and improve ideas. Participants were permitted to combine and improve ideas and use one idea as a springboard for another. Group creativity technique. Brainstorming, according to Osborn, was meant to be conducted in a group setting of approximately 5-12 participants, including both experts and novices. Osborn proposed that at least 5 members have experience and training in Brainstorming. It is important to emphasize, however, that Osborne has always insisted that Brainstorming was not to replace individual ideation and that group brainstorming is recommended solely as a supplement to individual ideation. Since its initial publication in 1953, Applied Imagination has become one of the most widely known textbooks on the subject of creativity.

2. Creative problem-solving

Alex Osborn proposed and developed a creative approach to the process of creative problem-solving, which could produce more innovative and effective solutions. In this case, Osborn was influenced by the ideas of Graham Wallace, on the fundamental elements of a creative thinking process, incubation, intimation, illumination, and verification. Contrary to Brainstorming, CPS was a multi-stage creative process model intended to resolve practical problems. As early as 1939, Osborn, working as head of the advertising department, began to develop creative problem-solving techniques. There were several versions and models of the CPS, each of which included incremental improvements. In his work Applied Imagination (1953), Osborn developed CPS as a seven-stage process: orientation, preparation, analysis, hypothesis, incubation, synthesis, and verification. The revised description provided in Alex Osborn’s Applied Imagination (1963) outlined the three major stages of CPS: fact-finding, idea-finding and solution-finding. I. Fact-finding includes: 1. Problem-definition. 2. Preparation. II. Idea-finding calls for: 3. Idea-production, 4. Idea-development, III. Solution-finding calls for: 5. Evaluation, 6. Adoption. This process was later expanded into the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem-Solving Process. ( CPSP, commonly referred to as CPS ). Dr. Sidney J. Parnes (1922-2013) was a professor at Buffalo State College. Their Creative Problem-Solving Process (CPSP) has been taught at the International Centre for Studies in Creativity at Buffalo College in Buffalo, New York since the 1950s. Parnes further modified Osborn’s CPS model. In Parnes’ Instructor’s Manual for Institutes and Programs (1966) outlined the Osborn-Parnes five-stage CPS process. Therefore CPS evolved from Osborn’s seven-stage and three-step models to the Osborn-Parnes five-step model (Parnes, 1967), comprising fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding and acceptance-finding. Later, the sixth stage of mess-finding was added. There are 6 steps to the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem-Solving Process. 1. Mess-finding / Objective finding. In this phase, you determine what the goal of your problem-solving process will be. 2. Fact-Finding ensures you gather enough data to fully understand the problem. 3. Problem Finding phase allows you to dig deeper into the problem and find the root or real problem. 4. Idea-Finding phase allows your team to generate many options for addressing the problem. 5. Solution Finding phase allows you to choose the best options from the ideas generated in the Idea Finding phase. 6. Acceptance -Finding phase, develop a plan of action to implement the solution you’ve settled on as the best choice. They further divide their six steps into three phases. 1. Exploring the Challenge, which combines The first three steps 2. Idea Finding occupies the Generating Ideas. 3. Preparing for Action includes the last two steps. Creative Problem Solving (CPS) is a structured way to generate creative and innovative ways to address problems, which is based on two assumptions: • Everyone is creative. • Creative skills can be learned and enhanced. More recent modifications of CPS group the activities into four categories: Clarify, Ideate, Develop, and Implement, where divergent and convergent thinking are balanced.

3. Creative thinking and applied creativity

Alex Osborn was a pioneer in the field of creative thinking and one of the founding fathers of creativity research and applied creativity. Everyone is creative and creativity could be nurtured directed, facilitated and enhanced. Osborn believed that everyone had the potential to be creative and that creativity was a valuable tool for problem-solving and innovation. He thought that it was up to individuals and organizations to cultivate this potential through training and education. Osborne claimed that creativity could be awakened and enhanced through organizational activities and guided conscious effort. He stated: “Creativity is now something we can turn on and off like a faucet. It is an experience and expression in our lives that must be nurtured. This nurturing process means that creativity is at once a skill, an art, and a lifestyle”. Applied creativity. Osborn was also a strong advocate for the use of creativity in business. As a business and advertising leader, Osborn recognized the importance of creativity, imagination and creative problem-solving. He was acutely aware of the contribution creativity made to organizational success. He found that traditional problem-solving methods often stifled creativity and prevented new ideas from emerging. In this regard, he began to develop and test new methodologies and techniques that would enhance the creativity of individuals and teams and their ability to meet new challenges. Osborn’s long-term goal was to promote creativity and innovation in all aspects of life. Thus, he stated, that creativity, empathy and imagination can improve personal relations. Creative leadership. He believed that creativity drives leadership is why CPS has become a process that can promote real change in any organization through a group of empowered individuals. Osborn mentioned that “not only in business but in every line, the quality of leadership depends on creative power”. Positive attitude facilitates creativity. One of Osborne’s pioneering ideas in the field of creativity and cognitive science was to reveal the influence of mood and state on the success and efficiency of creativity. Besides, some of Osborn’s principles, ideas and rules of Brainstorming and Creative Problem Solving have been adopted into the most popular modern creativity technique – Design Thinking.

4. Fruitful and prolific authorship Apart from his work in advertising, Alex F. Osborn was a prolific author and published over 20 books on creativity, problem-solving, advertising, communication and innovation In 1942, “How To Think Up” was published, in which Osborn presented the idea of Brainstorming. His book “Your Creative Power” was published in 1948 and became a bestseller. In 1952, Osborn published “Wake Up Your Mind: 101 Ways to Develop Creativeness”, in 1953 his famous and influential book “Applied Imagination” and subsequently published the books under the title “Creative Problem-Solving: The Basic Course” in 1963 and “How to Become More Creative” in 1964. These books provided insights into the theory and practice of creativity, offering practical techniques and exercises for enhancing creative thinking. These works include advice for individuals and organizations seeking to improve their creative problem-solving skills.

5. Creativity in Education

Although he was a businessman, Osborn’s dream was to impact education in such a way as to develop the creative imagination of students. In 1954, Dr. Osborn founded the Creative Education Foundation of Buffalo , to promote the use of creative thinking in education and business. CEF’s mission has evolved into the following: “to expand the use of creativity and innovation worldwide”. This foundation was sustained by the royalties earned from his books and served as its president. The CEF developed programs and workshops to help individuals and organizations foster their creative potential and solve problems in innovative ways. In 1954 he also launched the Creative Education Foundation’s Creative Problem Solving Institute (CPSI) . Sid Parnes joined him the next year and became a guiding force for both CEF and CPSI. CEF and CPSI foundation later led to the establishment of the Creative Studies Department at Buffalo State College in 1967 (now SUNY Buffalo State College), Buffalo, NY, also known as the International Center for Studies in Creativity (ICSC) , which Osborn co-founded with Dr. Sidney J. Parnes. Working with Parnes, the two developed the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem-Solving Model and later, together with Dr. Ruth Noller, a methodology for teaching it to students. Together with Sidney J. Parnes and Ruth Noller, they established the World’s First-Degree Program in Creativity at Buffalo State. The undergraduate minor program was launched in 1974 and the Master of Science degree was approved in 1975. Prolific speaker and lecturer. Osborn was also a prolific speaker and lecturer, sought after for his expertise in applied creativity and innovation. He was also a professor at multiple universities, including Syracuse University and the University of Buffalo, where he taught courses on creative thinking. Osborn did quite a bit of public speaking throughout the United States. He also worked with educators and business leaders to promote creativity and innovation in education and business.

6. Contributions to Advertising and Marketing

Contributions to Advertising and Marketing: Osborne also made significant contributions to the psychology of advertising and marketing. His research and practice contributed to the development of an understanding of consumer behaviour and effective strategies for promoting products and services. He actively promoted the importance of considering psychological factors when designing marketing campaigns. Alex Osborne is considered the pioneer of radio advertising. In addition to his work in the field of creativity, Osborn was also a successful advertising executive. In 1921, before he published his theories and applications of creativity, Osborn published the book “A Short Course in Advertising”. Osborn began his advertising career in 1915, and in August of 1919, He became a partner and the agency (BD&O, Inc. which in 1928 was renamed BBD&O). From 1939 to 1960 he served as chairman and vice chairman of BBD&O, which became one of the largest and most successful advertising agencies in the world. He was the advertising director and the leading “Idea Man” at BBDO for 32 years and helped develop several notable advertising campaigns for clients such as General Electric, Pepsi, Merrill Lynch, Armstrong Cork, Chrysler, General Baking, Royal Crown Cola, American Tobacco, BF Goodrich, Du Pont, Wildroot Hair Tonic. BBDO is still serving clients worldwide today with more than 15,000 employees at 289 offices in 81 countries and is the largest of three global networks of agencies. Today, BBDO Worldwide is a full-service, global network with over 200 locations around the world. It is his work in advertising allowed him to explore creative thinking techniques. Over the course of his advertising career, Osborn received several patents for advertising displays and various devices. Together with famous advertising leader William Bernbach, they co-founded the International Academy of Advertising in 1960. W. Bernbach described him as “a great advertising man and a great human being.” Osborn also served as the president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies.

Honours and Awards: Throughout his career, Osborn received numerous awards and honours. In recognition of his contributions to advertising and creativity, Osborn was inducted into the Advertising Hall of Fame in 1974. He received several awards and honours including: The National Red Feather Award (1951), The Advertising Federation of America-Printers’ Ink Silver Medal for lifetime achievement in the advertising business (1951 & 1961), He also received two honorary doctorate degrees from Webber College and Hamilton College (both 1959), and the University of New York at Buffalo Chancellor’s Medal (1960). He served as director of the Marine Trust Company and Wildroot Co. Inc., was a trustee of the Western Savings Bank, trustee emeritus of Hamilton College, vice-president of the Community Chests and Councils of Americas and vice-president of the United Defense Fund, and also vice-chairman and council member of the University of Buffalo (1951-1959).

Some of the notable publications by Alex F. Osborn include: 1. Osborn, A. F. (1921) A Short Course in Advertising, London, New York: Sir I. Pitman & Son, 2. Osborn, A. F. (1942) How to “Think Up”. New York, London: McGraw-Hill Book 3. Osborn, A. F. (1948) Your Creative Power, Scribner, 4. Osborn, A. F. (1952a). Wake up your mind: 101 ways to develop creativeness. New York: Scribners. 8. Osborn, A. F. (1953/1979). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Scribners. 10. Osborn, A. F. (1955, June). A one-two plan for supervisory conferences. Supervisory Development Today, 1, 1-3. 11. Osborn, A. F. (1956a, January 31). Ways to be more creative. Paper presented at the meeting of the Education Committee, Sales Executives Club of New York, NY. 12. Osborn, A. F. (1956b, July 8). Was Einstein right? Paper presented at Kleinhans Music Hall, Buffalo, NY. 13. Osborn, A. F. (1958, October 14). Remarks to the faculty of Macalester College. Paper presented at the meeting of the Macalester College Faculty, Saint Paul, MN. 14. Osborn, A. F. (1962). Developments in creative education. In S. J. Parnes & H. F. Harding (Eds.), A source book for creative thinking (pp. 19-29). New York: Scribners. 15. Osborn, A. F. (1963) Creative Problem-Solving: The Basic Course. 15. Osborn, A. F. (1964a). The creative education movement (as of 1964). Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. 16. Osborn, A. F. (1964b). How to become more creative: 101 rewarding ways to develop potential talent. New York: Scribners.

Career and Personal Life

Family background: Alex F. Osborn was born on May 24, 1888, in Bronxville, New York. Osborn was the Son of John and Kate Osborn. He had five other siblings and was the youngest in his family. Osborn spent his childhood in New York. Growing up in this metropolis, Osborn was exposed to a vibrant cultural and intellectual environment, which influenced his later work in creativity. Osborn was an avid reader and enjoyed writing and storytelling from a young age. Education background: Osborn attended Morris High School in New York City. He received his Bachelor of Science psychology degree from Hamilton College in Clinton, New York, in 1910. He then enrolled in the advertising program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, where he received a master’s degree in 1915.

Career highlights:

After graduation from Hamilton College, he took a position as a newspaper reporter for the Buffalo Times, followed by a brief stint reporting with the Buffalo Express over the course of two years. From 1911-1912, he was assistant secretary of the Buffalo Chamber of Commerce. From 1912-1915, he was sales manager for the Hard Manufacturing Co. of Buffalo, a manufacturer of beds. He began his famous advertising career in 1915 and until 1919 served as business manager of the E.P. Remington Advertising Agency in Buffalo. During that time he edited Y magazine of the YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association). The magazine executive introduced Osborn to a fellow advertiser and writer named, Bruce Fairchild Barton. The two men volunteered for the United War Work campaign, which combined efforts of several organizations, including the Y.W.C.A., to raise money for the war.. Osborn also served in the New York National Guard on the Mexico-Texas border during World War I.

In 1919 Osborne met Roy Sarles Derstine, a former reporter for the New York Sun, while fundraising for the YMCA. Osborn proposed to Bruce F. Barton and Roy S. Durstine to start their own advertising agency. On January 2, 1919, B. Barton and R. Durstine, a former writer and former reporter formed their own advertising agency called Barton & Durstine Co., Inc. ( B&D Co., Inc. ), located in NYC. In August 1919, Osborn became a partner in the agency and it was renamed Barton, Durstine & Osborn, Inc.( BD&O, Inc. ) Osborn began to work at the Western NY branch in Buffalo’s Ellicott Square Building. This was the start of one of the most successful ad agencies in the 20th century. In 1928, Barton, Durstine and Osborn merged with the George Batten firm and would become known as Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn (BBD&O) . After years of success and having survived the Great Depression, BBDO underwent a crisis in 1938, losing many of its clients and key personnel. Osborn commuted to New York City and eventually saved the company by securing the Goodrich tire account. Osborne became executive vice president of BBD&O after Derstine resigned in 1939 and he subsequently became chairman and then vice chairman of the board and held that position from 1946 until his retirement. Osborn was crucial in recruiting many top employees, including Ben Duffy, who eventually became the president of BBDO. Dr. Osborn retired from BBDO’s board of directors in 1960 after thirty-two years. He served also as director of the Marine Trust Company and Wildroot Co. Inc., was a trustee of the Western Savings Bank, trustee emeritus of Hamilton College, vice-president of the Community Chests and Councils of Americas and vice-president of the United Defense Fund, and also vice-chairman and council member of the University of Buffalo (1951-1959).

Personal life:

On September 15, 1916, in Welland, Ontario, Canada, Alexander F Osborn married Helen Coatsworth, the daughter of Buffalo attorney, Edward E. Coatsworth of Western Savings Bank. The couple had five children to include: Katharine, Joan, Marion, Russell and Elinor. (Katherine O. Chambers Joan O. Bergantz Marion C. Osborn. Russell B. Osborn, Elinor O. Gartner). Despite his busy professional life, Osborn was a devoted family man and spent much of his free time with his wife and children. Personality: Osborn was a charismatic leader and a persuasive speaker who empowered others to innovate and experiment. He was known for his creative thinking and his ability to generate new ideas. “Alex Osborn was a visionary. A man has driven to make the world a better place by uplifting humanity’s creative power”( G. Puccio & M. Holinger). Osborn was a philanthropist, was involved in several charitable organizations and was known for his generosity and his commitment to helping others. Osborn was highly regarded by his peers and mentees, for his creativity, leadership, and vision Philosophy of life: His philosophy centred around the idea that creativity could be learned and developed through practice and the application of specific techniques. Osborn believed that a habit of creative effort is the key to a good life. He stated that exactly creativity was crucial for success and could be nurtured with the right mindset and tools. He emphasized collaboration as the source of breakthrough solutions. He believed that leaders should set the vision, create the conditions for success, and give their teams the space to innovate and experiment. Hobbies, interests, and personal pursuits: Osborn enjoyed oil painting, playing golf, and gardening. He also had a keen interest in nature and would spend hours observing the plants and animals in his backyard. Osborn was an avid traveller, enjoyed hiking and camping and often used these experiences to inspire his creative work. He was also a collector of rare books and art, and his extensive collection was housed in a library he built in his home. Alex F. Osborn passed away on May 5, 1966, in Manhasset, New York, at the age of 77. He was cremated and his ashes are in a niche at Forest Lawn Cemetery in Buffalo, New York. Zest: His first article was a reaction to the impolite taxi driver’s behaviour that prompted him to write about the trend among Americans to misuse their freedom. Later the editor, after reading this article, asked Osborne to write a book on the imagination. In 1952 he lost over twenty pounds while writing the manuscript for Wake Up Your Mind. The first empirical test of Osborn’s brainstorming technique was performed at Yale University, in 1958 At the age of 53, Osborn took up oil painting, which was a pastime he enjoyed for the rest of his life. He was a talented painter and was known for his cityscapes, landscapes, marine scenes and portraits.

Links: kiecon.org, russellawheeler.com , meibohmfinearts.com , regent.edu,  creativity.buffalostate.edu

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Charismatic Theory of Genius

Personological Theory of Genius

Teresa Amabile – Pioneer of research on organizational creativity

Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi – Creator of the Creativity Concept as the State of Flow

Edward De Bono – renowned creativity expert and the father of lateral thinking

Design Thinking – New Way of Vision and Creative Problem-solving

Brainsketching as an idea-generation technique

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Log in to leave a comment

35 problem-solving techniques and methods for solving complex problems

Design your next session with SessionLab

Join the 150,000+ facilitators 
using SessionLab.

Recommended Articles

A step-by-step guide to planning a workshop, how to create an unforgettable training session in 8 simple steps, 47 useful online tools for workshop planning and meeting facilitation.

All teams and organizations encounter challenges as they grow. There are problems that might occur for teams when it comes to miscommunication or resolving business-critical issues . You may face challenges around growth , design , user engagement, and even team culture and happiness. In short, problem-solving techniques should be part of every team’s skillset.

Problem-solving methods are primarily designed to help a group or team through a process of first identifying problems and challenges , ideating possible solutions , and then evaluating the most suitable .

Finding effective solutions to complex problems isn’t easy, but by using the right process and techniques, you can help your team be more efficient in the process.

So how do you develop strategies that are engaging, and empower your team to solve problems effectively?

In this blog post, we share a series of problem-solving tools you can use in your next workshop or team meeting. You’ll also find some tips for facilitating the process and how to enable others to solve complex problems.

Let’s get started! 

How do you identify problems?

How do you identify the right solution.

• Tips for more effective problem-solving

Complete problem-solving methods

• Problem-solving techniques to identify and analyze problems
• Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions

Problem-solving warm-up activities

Closing activities for a problem-solving process.

Before you can move towards finding the right solution for a given problem, you first need to identify and define the problem you wish to solve. 

Here, you want to clearly articulate what the problem is and allow your group to do the same. Remember that everyone in a group is likely to have differing perspectives and alignment is necessary in order to help the group move forward. 

Identifying a problem accurately also requires that all members of a group are able to contribute their views in an open and safe manner. It can be scary for people to stand up and contribute, especially if the problems or challenges are emotive or personal in nature. Be sure to try and create a psychologically safe space for these kinds of discussions.

Remember that problem analysis and further discussion are also important. Not taking the time to fully analyze and discuss a challenge can result in the development of solutions that are not fit for purpose or do not address the underlying issue.

Successfully identifying and then analyzing a problem means facilitating a group through activities designed to help them clearly and honestly articulate their thoughts and produce usable insight.

With this data, you might then produce a problem statement that clearly describes the problem you wish to be addressed and also state the goal of any process you undertake to tackle this issue.  

Finding solutions is the end goal of any process. Complex organizational challenges can only be solved with an appropriate solution but discovering them requires using the right problem-solving tool.

After you’ve explored a problem and discussed ideas, you need to help a team discuss and choose the right solution. Consensus tools and methods such as those below help a group explore possible solutions before then voting for the best. They’re a great way to tap into the collective intelligence of the group for great results!

Remember that the process is often iterative. Great problem solvers often roadtest a viable solution in a measured way to see what works too. While you might not get the right solution on your first try, the methods below help teams land on the most likely to succeed solution while also holding space for improvement.

Every effective problem solving process begins with an agenda . A well-structured workshop is one of the best methods for successfully guiding a group from exploring a problem to implementing a solution.

In SessionLab, it’s easy to go from an idea to a complete agenda . Start by dragging and dropping your core problem solving activities into place . Add timings, breaks and necessary materials before sharing your agenda with your colleagues.

The resulting agenda will be your guide to an effective and productive problem solving session that will also help you stay organized on the day!

Tips for more effective problem solving

Problem-solving activities are only one part of the puzzle. While a great method can help unlock your team’s ability to solve problems, without a thoughtful approach and strong facilitation the solutions may not be fit for purpose.

Let’s take a look at some problem-solving tips you can apply to any process to help it be a success!

Clearly define the problem

Jumping straight to solutions can be tempting, though without first clearly articulating a problem, the solution might not be the right one. Many of the problem-solving activities below include sections where the problem is explored and clearly defined before moving on.

This is a vital part of the problem-solving process and taking the time to fully define an issue can save time and effort later. A clear definition helps identify irrelevant information and it also ensures that your team sets off on the right track.

Don’t jump to conclusions

It’s easy for groups to exhibit cognitive bias or have preconceived ideas about both problems and potential solutions. Be sure to back up any problem statements or potential solutions with facts, research, and adequate forethought.

The best techniques ask participants to be methodical and challenge preconceived notions. Make sure you give the group enough time and space to collect relevant information and consider the problem in a new way. By approaching the process with a clear, rational mindset, you’ll often find that better solutions are more forthcoming.  

Try different approaches  

Problems come in all shapes and sizes and so too should the methods you use to solve them. If you find that one approach isn’t yielding results and your team isn’t finding different solutions, try mixing it up. You’ll be surprised at how using a new creative activity can unblock your team and generate great solutions.

Don’t take it personally 

Depending on the nature of your team or organizational problems, it’s easy for conversations to get heated. While it’s good for participants to be engaged in the discussions, ensure that emotions don’t run too high and that blame isn’t thrown around while finding solutions.

You’re all in it together, and even if your team or area is seeing problems, that isn’t necessarily a disparagement of you personally. Using facilitation skills to manage group dynamics is one effective method of helping conversations be more constructive.

Get the right people in the room

Your problem-solving method is often only as effective as the group using it. Getting the right people on the job and managing the number of people present is important too!

If the group is too small, you may not get enough different perspectives to effectively solve a problem. If the group is too large, you can go round and round during the ideation stages.

Creating the right group makeup is also important in ensuring you have the necessary expertise and skillset to both identify and follow up on potential solutions. Carefully consider who to include at each stage to help ensure your problem-solving method is followed and positioned for success.

Document everything

The best solutions can take refinement, iteration, and reflection to come out. Get into a habit of documenting your process in order to keep all the learnings from the session and to allow ideas to mature and develop. Many of the methods below involve the creation of documents or shared resources. Be sure to keep and share these so everyone can benefit from the work done!

Bring a facilitator 

Facilitation is all about making group processes easier. With a subject as potentially emotive and important as problem-solving, having an impartial third party in the form of a facilitator can make all the difference in finding great solutions and keeping the process moving. Consider bringing a facilitator to your problem-solving session to get better results and generate meaningful solutions!

Develop your problem-solving skills

It takes time and practice to be an effective problem solver. While some roles or participants might more naturally gravitate towards problem-solving, it can take development and planning to help everyone create better solutions.

You might develop a training program, run a problem-solving workshop or simply ask your team to practice using the techniques below. Check out our post on problem-solving skills to see how you and your group can develop the right mental process and be more resilient to issues too!

Design a great agenda

Workshops are a great format for solving problems. With the right approach, you can focus a group and help them find the solutions to their own problems. But designing a process can be time-consuming and finding the right activities can be difficult.

Check out our workshop planning guide to level-up your agenda design and start running more effective workshops. Need inspiration? Check out templates designed by expert facilitators to help you kickstart your process!

In this section, we’ll look at in-depth problem-solving methods that provide a complete end-to-end process for developing effective solutions. These will help guide your team from the discovery and definition of a problem through to delivering the right solution.

If you’re looking for an all-encompassing method or problem-solving model, these processes are a great place to start. They’ll ask your team to challenge preconceived ideas and adopt a mindset for solving problems more effectively.

• Six Thinking Hats
• Lightning Decision Jam
• Problem Definition Process
• Discovery & Action Dialogue

Design Sprint 2.0

• Open Space Technology

1. Six Thinking Hats

Individual approaches to solving a problem can be very different based on what team or role an individual holds. It can be easy for existing biases or perspectives to find their way into the mix, or for internal politics to direct a conversation.

Six Thinking Hats is a classic method for identifying the problems that need to be solved and enables your team to consider them from different angles, whether that is by focusing on facts and data, creative solutions, or by considering why a particular solution might not work.

Like all problem-solving frameworks, Six Thinking Hats is effective at helping teams remove roadblocks from a conversation or discussion and come to terms with all the aspects necessary to solve complex problems.

2. Lightning Decision Jam

Featured courtesy of Jonathan Courtney of AJ&Smart Berlin, Lightning Decision Jam is one of those strategies that should be in every facilitation toolbox. Exploring problems and finding solutions is often creative in nature, though as with any creative process, there is the potential to lose focus and get lost.

Unstructured discussions might get you there in the end, but it’s much more effective to use a method that creates a clear process and team focus.

In Lightning Decision Jam, participants are invited to begin by writing challenges, concerns, or mistakes on post-its without discussing them before then being invited by the moderator to present them to the group.

From there, the team vote on which problems to solve and are guided through steps that will allow them to reframe those problems, create solutions and then decide what to execute on. 

By deciding the problems that need to be solved as a team before moving on, this group process is great for ensuring the whole team is aligned and can take ownership over the next stages. 

Lightning Decision Jam (LDJ)   #action   #decision making   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #innovation   #design   #remote-friendly   The problem with anything that requires creative thinking is that it’s easy to get lost—lose focus and fall into the trap of having useless, open-ended, unstructured discussions. Here’s the most effective solution I’ve found: Replace all open, unstructured discussion with a clear process. What to use this exercise for: Anything which requires a group of people to make decisions, solve problems or discuss challenges. It’s always good to frame an LDJ session with a broad topic, here are some examples: The conversion flow of our checkout Our internal design process How we organise events Keeping up with our competition Improving sales flow

3. Problem Definition Process

While problems can be complex, the problem-solving methods you use to identify and solve those problems can often be simple in design. 

By taking the time to truly identify and define a problem before asking the group to reframe the challenge as an opportunity, this method is a great way to enable change.

Begin by identifying a focus question and exploring the ways in which it manifests before splitting into five teams who will each consider the problem using a different method: escape, reversal, exaggeration, distortion or wishful. Teams develop a problem objective and create ideas in line with their method before then feeding them back to the group.

This method is great for enabling in-depth discussions while also creating space for finding creative solutions too!

Problem Definition   #problem solving   #idea generation   #creativity   #online   #remote-friendly   A problem solving technique to define a problem, challenge or opportunity and to generate ideas.

4. The 5 Whys 

Sometimes, a group needs to go further with their strategies and analyze the root cause at the heart of organizational issues. An RCA or root cause analysis is the process of identifying what is at the heart of business problems or recurring challenges. 

The 5 Whys is a simple and effective method of helping a group go find the root cause of any problem or challenge and conduct analysis that will deliver results. 

By beginning with the creation of a problem statement and going through five stages to refine it, The 5 Whys provides everything you need to truly discover the cause of an issue.

The 5 Whys   #hyperisland   #innovation   This simple and powerful method is useful for getting to the core of a problem or challenge. As the title suggests, the group defines a problems, then asks the question “why” five times, often using the resulting explanation as a starting point for creative problem solving.

5. World Cafe

World Cafe is a simple but powerful facilitation technique to help bigger groups to focus their energy and attention on solving complex problems.

World Cafe enables this approach by creating a relaxed atmosphere where participants are able to self-organize and explore topics relevant and important to them which are themed around a central problem-solving purpose. Create the right atmosphere by modeling your space after a cafe and after guiding the group through the method, let them take the lead!

Making problem-solving a part of your organization’s culture in the long term can be a difficult undertaking. More approachable formats like World Cafe can be especially effective in bringing people unfamiliar with workshops into the fold. 

World Cafe   #hyperisland   #innovation   #issue analysis   World Café is a simple yet powerful method, originated by Juanita Brown, for enabling meaningful conversations driven completely by participants and the topics that are relevant and important to them. Facilitators create a cafe-style space and provide simple guidelines. Participants then self-organize and explore a set of relevant topics or questions for conversation.

6. Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)

One of the best approaches is to create a safe space for a group to share and discover practices and behaviors that can help them find their own solutions.

With DAD, you can help a group choose which problems they wish to solve and which approaches they will take to do so. It’s great at helping remove resistance to change and can help get buy-in at every level too!

This process of enabling frontline ownership is great in ensuring follow-through and is one of the methods you will want in your toolbox as a facilitator.

Discovery & Action Dialogue (DAD)   #idea generation   #liberating structures   #action   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   DADs make it easy for a group or community to discover practices and behaviors that enable some individuals (without access to special resources and facing the same constraints) to find better solutions than their peers to common problems. These are called positive deviant (PD) behaviors and practices. DADs make it possible for people in the group, unit, or community to discover by themselves these PD practices. DADs also create favorable conditions for stimulating participants’ creativity in spaces where they can feel safe to invent new and more effective practices. Resistance to change evaporates as participants are unleashed to choose freely which practices they will adopt or try and which problems they will tackle. DADs make it possible to achieve frontline ownership of solutions.

7. Design Sprint 2.0

Want to see how a team can solve big problems and move forward with prototyping and testing solutions in a few days? The Design Sprint 2.0 template from Jake Knapp, author of Sprint, is a complete agenda for a with proven results.

Developing the right agenda can involve difficult but necessary planning. Ensuring all the correct steps are followed can also be stressful or time-consuming depending on your level of experience.

Use this complete 4-day workshop template if you are finding there is no obvious solution to your challenge and want to focus your team around a specific problem that might require a shortcut to launching a minimum viable product or waiting for the organization-wide implementation of a solution.

8. Open space technology

Open space technology- developed by Harrison Owen – creates a space where large groups are invited to take ownership of their problem solving and lead individual sessions. Open space technology is a great format when you have a great deal of expertise and insight in the room and want to allow for different takes and approaches on a particular theme or problem you need to be solved.

Start by bringing your participants together to align around a central theme and focus their efforts. Explain the ground rules to help guide the problem-solving process and then invite members to identify any issue connecting to the central theme that they are interested in and are prepared to take responsibility for.

Once participants have decided on their approach to the core theme, they write their issue on a piece of paper, announce it to the group, pick a session time and place, and post the paper on the wall. As the wall fills up with sessions, the group is then invited to join the sessions that interest them the most and which they can contribute to, then you’re ready to begin!

Everyone joins the problem-solving group they’ve signed up to, record the discussion and if appropriate, findings can then be shared with the rest of the group afterward.

Open Space Technology   #action plan   #idea generation   #problem solving   #issue analysis   #large group   #online   #remote-friendly   Open Space is a methodology for large groups to create their agenda discerning important topics for discussion, suitable for conferences, community gatherings and whole system facilitation

Techniques to identify and analyze problems

Using a problem-solving method to help a team identify and analyze a problem can be a quick and effective addition to any workshop or meeting.

While further actions are always necessary, you can generate momentum and alignment easily, and these activities are a great place to get started.

We’ve put together this list of techniques to help you and your team with problem identification, analysis, and discussion that sets the foundation for developing effective solutions.

Let’s take a look!

• The Creativity Dice
• Fishbone Analysis
• Problem Tree
• SWOT Analysis
• Agreement-Certainty Matrix
• The Journalistic Six
• LEGO Challenge
• What, So What, Now What?
• Journalists

Individual and group perspectives are incredibly important, but what happens if people are set in their minds and need a change of perspective in order to approach a problem more effectively?

Flip It is a method we love because it is both simple to understand and run, and allows groups to understand how their perspectives and biases are formed. 

Participants in Flip It are first invited to consider concerns, issues, or problems from a perspective of fear and write them on a flip chart. Then, the group is asked to consider those same issues from a perspective of hope and flip their understanding.  

No problem and solution is free from existing bias and by changing perspectives with Flip It, you can then develop a problem solving model quickly and effectively.

Flip It!   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Often, a change in a problem or situation comes simply from a change in our perspectives. Flip It! is a quick game designed to show players that perspectives are made, not born.

10. The Creativity Dice

One of the most useful problem solving skills you can teach your team is of approaching challenges with creativity, flexibility, and openness. Games like The Creativity Dice allow teams to overcome the potential hurdle of too much linear thinking and approach the process with a sense of fun and speed. 

In The Creativity Dice, participants are organized around a topic and roll a dice to determine what they will work on for a period of 3 minutes at a time. They might roll a 3 and work on investigating factual information on the chosen topic. They might roll a 1 and work on identifying the specific goals, standards, or criteria for the session.

Encouraging rapid work and iteration while asking participants to be flexible are great skills to cultivate. Having a stage for idea incubation in this game is also important. Moments of pause can help ensure the ideas that are put forward are the most suitable. 

The Creativity Dice   #creativity   #problem solving   #thiagi   #issue analysis   Too much linear thinking is hazardous to creative problem solving. To be creative, you should approach the problem (or the opportunity) from different points of view. You should leave a thought hanging in mid-air and move to another. This skipping around prevents premature closure and lets your brain incubate one line of thought while you consciously pursue another.

11. Fishbone Analysis

Organizational or team challenges are rarely simple, and it’s important to remember that one problem can be an indication of something that goes deeper and may require further consideration to be solved.

Fishbone Analysis helps groups to dig deeper and understand the origins of a problem. It’s a great example of a root cause analysis method that is simple for everyone on a team to get their head around. 

Participants in this activity are asked to annotate a diagram of a fish, first adding the problem or issue to be worked on at the head of a fish before then brainstorming the root causes of the problem and adding them as bones on the fish. 

Using abstractions such as a diagram of a fish can really help a team break out of their regular thinking and develop a creative approach.

Fishbone Analysis   #problem solving   ##root cause analysis   #decision making   #online facilitation   A process to help identify and understand the origins of problems, issues or observations.

12. Problem Tree 

Encouraging visual thinking can be an essential part of many strategies. By simply reframing and clarifying problems, a group can move towards developing a problem solving model that works for them. 

In Problem Tree, groups are asked to first brainstorm a list of problems – these can be design problems, team problems or larger business problems – and then organize them into a hierarchy. The hierarchy could be from most important to least important or abstract to practical, though the key thing with problem solving games that involve this aspect is that your group has some way of managing and sorting all the issues that are raised.

Once you have a list of problems that need to be solved and have organized them accordingly, you’re then well-positioned for the next problem solving steps.

Problem tree   #define intentions   #create   #design   #issue analysis   A problem tree is a tool to clarify the hierarchy of problems addressed by the team within a design project; it represents high level problems or related sublevel problems.

13. SWOT Analysis

Chances are you’ve heard of the SWOT Analysis before. This problem-solving method focuses on identifying strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats is a tried and tested method for both individuals and teams.

Start by creating a desired end state or outcome and bare this in mind – any process solving model is made more effective by knowing what you are moving towards. Create a quadrant made up of the four categories of a SWOT analysis and ask participants to generate ideas based on each of those quadrants.

Once you have those ideas assembled in their quadrants, cluster them together based on their affinity with other ideas. These clusters are then used to facilitate group conversations and move things forward. 

SWOT analysis   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   #meeting facilitation   The SWOT Analysis is a long-standing technique of looking at what we have, with respect to the desired end state, as well as what we could improve on. It gives us an opportunity to gauge approaching opportunities and dangers, and assess the seriousness of the conditions that affect our future. When we understand those conditions, we can influence what comes next.

14. Agreement-Certainty Matrix

Not every problem-solving approach is right for every challenge, and deciding on the right method for the challenge at hand is a key part of being an effective team.

The Agreement Certainty matrix helps teams align on the nature of the challenges facing them. By sorting problems from simple to chaotic, your team can understand what methods are suitable for each problem and what they can do to ensure effective results. 

If you are already using Liberating Structures techniques as part of your problem-solving strategy, the Agreement-Certainty Matrix can be an invaluable addition to your process. We’ve found it particularly if you are having issues with recurring problems in your organization and want to go deeper in understanding the root cause. 

Agreement-Certainty Matrix   #issue analysis   #liberating structures   #problem solving   You can help individuals or groups avoid the frequent mistake of trying to solve a problem with methods that are not adapted to the nature of their challenge. The combination of two questions makes it possible to easily sort challenges into four categories: simple, complicated, complex , and chaotic .  A problem is simple when it can be solved reliably with practices that are easy to duplicate.  It is complicated when experts are required to devise a sophisticated solution that will yield the desired results predictably.  A problem is complex when there are several valid ways to proceed but outcomes are not predictable in detail.  Chaotic is when the context is too turbulent to identify a path forward.  A loose analogy may be used to describe these differences: simple is like following a recipe, complicated like sending a rocket to the moon, complex like raising a child, and chaotic is like the game “Pin the Tail on the Donkey.”  The Liberating Structures Matching Matrix in Chapter 5 can be used as the first step to clarify the nature of a challenge and avoid the mismatches between problems and solutions that are frequently at the root of chronic, recurring problems.

Organizing and charting a team’s progress can be important in ensuring its success. SQUID (Sequential Question and Insight Diagram) is a great model that allows a team to effectively switch between giving questions and answers and develop the skills they need to stay on track throughout the process. 

Begin with two different colored sticky notes – one for questions and one for answers – and with your central topic (the head of the squid) on the board. Ask the group to first come up with a series of questions connected to their best guess of how to approach the topic. Ask the group to come up with answers to those questions, fix them to the board and connect them with a line. After some discussion, go back to question mode by responding to the generated answers or other points on the board.

It’s rewarding to see a diagram grow throughout the exercise, and a completed SQUID can provide a visual resource for future effort and as an example for other teams.

SQUID   #gamestorming   #project planning   #issue analysis   #problem solving   When exploring an information space, it’s important for a group to know where they are at any given time. By using SQUID, a group charts out the territory as they go and can navigate accordingly. SQUID stands for Sequential Question and Insight Diagram.

16. Speed Boat

To continue with our nautical theme, Speed Boat is a short and sweet activity that can help a team quickly identify what employees, clients or service users might have a problem with and analyze what might be standing in the way of achieving a solution.

Methods that allow for a group to make observations, have insights and obtain those eureka moments quickly are invaluable when trying to solve complex problems.

In Speed Boat, the approach is to first consider what anchors and challenges might be holding an organization (or boat) back. Bonus points if you are able to identify any sharks in the water and develop ideas that can also deal with competitors!   

Speed Boat   #gamestorming   #problem solving   #action   Speedboat is a short and sweet way to identify what your employees or clients don’t like about your product/service or what’s standing in the way of a desired goal.

17. The Journalistic Six

Some of the most effective ways of solving problems is by encouraging teams to be more inclusive and diverse in their thinking.

Based on the six key questions journalism students are taught to answer in articles and news stories, The Journalistic Six helps create teams to see the whole picture. By using who, what, when, where, why, and how to facilitate the conversation and encourage creative thinking, your team can make sure that the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the are covered exhaustively and thoughtfully. Reporter’s notebook and dictaphone optional.

The Journalistic Six – Who What When Where Why How   #idea generation   #issue analysis   #problem solving   #online   #creative thinking   #remote-friendly   A questioning method for generating, explaining, investigating ideas.

18. LEGO Challenge

Now for an activity that is a little out of the (toy) box. LEGO Serious Play is a facilitation methodology that can be used to improve creative thinking and problem-solving skills. 

The LEGO Challenge includes giving each member of the team an assignment that is hidden from the rest of the group while they create a structure without speaking.

What the LEGO challenge brings to the table is a fun working example of working with stakeholders who might not be on the same page to solve problems. Also, it’s LEGO! Who doesn’t love LEGO! 

LEGO Challenge   #hyperisland   #team   A team-building activity in which groups must work together to build a structure out of LEGO, but each individual has a secret “assignment” which makes the collaborative process more challenging. It emphasizes group communication, leadership dynamics, conflict, cooperation, patience and problem solving strategy.

19. What, So What, Now What?

If not carefully managed, the problem identification and problem analysis stages of the problem-solving process can actually create more problems and misunderstandings.

The What, So What, Now What? problem-solving activity is designed to help collect insights and move forward while also eliminating the possibility of disagreement when it comes to identifying, clarifying, and analyzing organizational or work problems. 

Facilitation is all about bringing groups together so that might work on a shared goal and the best problem-solving strategies ensure that teams are aligned in purpose, if not initially in opinion or insight.

Throughout the three steps of this game, you give everyone on a team to reflect on a problem by asking what happened, why it is important, and what actions should then be taken. 

This can be a great activity for bringing our individual perceptions about a problem or challenge and contextualizing it in a larger group setting. This is one of the most important problem-solving skills you can bring to your organization.

W³ – What, So What, Now What?   #issue analysis   #innovation   #liberating structures   You can help groups reflect on a shared experience in a way that builds understanding and spurs coordinated action while avoiding unproductive conflict. It is possible for every voice to be heard while simultaneously sifting for insights and shaping new direction. Progressing in stages makes this practical—from collecting facts about What Happened to making sense of these facts with So What and finally to what actions logically follow with Now What . The shared progression eliminates most of the misunderstandings that otherwise fuel disagreements about what to do. Voila!

20. Journalists  

Problem analysis can be one of the most important and decisive stages of all problem-solving tools. Sometimes, a team can become bogged down in the details and are unable to move forward.

Journalists is an activity that can avoid a group from getting stuck in the problem identification or problem analysis stages of the process.

In Journalists, the group is invited to draft the front page of a fictional newspaper and figure out what stories deserve to be on the cover and what headlines those stories will have. By reframing how your problems and challenges are approached, you can help a team move productively through the process and be better prepared for the steps to follow.

Journalists   #vision   #big picture   #issue analysis   #remote-friendly   This is an exercise to use when the group gets stuck in details and struggles to see the big picture. Also good for defining a vision.

Problem-solving techniques for developing solutions 

The success of any problem-solving process can be measured by the solutions it produces. After you’ve defined the issue, explored existing ideas, and ideated, it’s time to narrow down to the correct solution.

Use these problem-solving techniques when you want to help your team find consensus, compare possible solutions, and move towards taking action on a particular problem.

• Improved Solutions
• Four-Step Sketch
• 15% Solutions
• How-Now-Wow matrix
• Impact Effort Matrix

21. Mindspin  

Brainstorming is part of the bread and butter of the problem-solving process and all problem-solving strategies benefit from getting ideas out and challenging a team to generate solutions quickly. 

With Mindspin, participants are encouraged not only to generate ideas but to do so under time constraints and by slamming down cards and passing them on. By doing multiple rounds, your team can begin with a free generation of possible solutions before moving on to developing those solutions and encouraging further ideation. 

This is one of our favorite problem-solving activities and can be great for keeping the energy up throughout the workshop. Remember the importance of helping people become engaged in the process – energizing problem-solving techniques like Mindspin can help ensure your team stays engaged and happy, even when the problems they’re coming together to solve are complex. 

MindSpin   #teampedia   #idea generation   #problem solving   #action   A fast and loud method to enhance brainstorming within a team. Since this activity has more than round ideas that are repetitive can be ruled out leaving more creative and innovative answers to the challenge.

22. Improved Solutions

After a team has successfully identified a problem and come up with a few solutions, it can be tempting to call the work of the problem-solving process complete. That said, the first solution is not necessarily the best, and by including a further review and reflection activity into your problem-solving model, you can ensure your group reaches the best possible result. 

One of a number of problem-solving games from Thiagi Group, Improved Solutions helps you go the extra mile and develop suggested solutions with close consideration and peer review. By supporting the discussion of several problems at once and by shifting team roles throughout, this problem-solving technique is a dynamic way of finding the best solution. 

Improved Solutions   #creativity   #thiagi   #problem solving   #action   #team   You can improve any solution by objectively reviewing its strengths and weaknesses and making suitable adjustments. In this creativity framegame, you improve the solutions to several problems. To maintain objective detachment, you deal with a different problem during each of six rounds and assume different roles (problem owner, consultant, basher, booster, enhancer, and evaluator) during each round. At the conclusion of the activity, each player ends up with two solutions to her problem.

23. Four Step Sketch

Creative thinking and visual ideation does not need to be confined to the opening stages of your problem-solving strategies. Exercises that include sketching and prototyping on paper can be effective at the solution finding and development stage of the process, and can be great for keeping a team engaged. 

By going from simple notes to a crazy 8s round that involves rapidly sketching 8 variations on their ideas before then producing a final solution sketch, the group is able to iterate quickly and visually. Problem-solving techniques like Four-Step Sketch are great if you have a group of different thinkers and want to change things up from a more textual or discussion-based approach.

Four-Step Sketch   #design sprint   #innovation   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   The four-step sketch is an exercise that helps people to create well-formed concepts through a structured process that includes: Review key information Start design work on paper,  Consider multiple variations , Create a detailed solution . This exercise is preceded by a set of other activities allowing the group to clarify the challenge they want to solve. See how the Four Step Sketch exercise fits into a Design Sprint

24. 15% Solutions

Some problems are simpler than others and with the right problem-solving activities, you can empower people to take immediate actions that can help create organizational change. 

Part of the liberating structures toolkit, 15% solutions is a problem-solving technique that focuses on finding and implementing solutions quickly. A process of iterating and making small changes quickly can help generate momentum and an appetite for solving complex problems.

Problem-solving strategies can live and die on whether people are onboard. Getting some quick wins is a great way of getting people behind the process.   

It can be extremely empowering for a team to realize that problem-solving techniques can be deployed quickly and easily and delineate between things they can positively impact and those things they cannot change. 

15% Solutions   #action   #liberating structures   #remote-friendly   You can reveal the actions, however small, that everyone can do immediately. At a minimum, these will create momentum, and that may make a BIG difference.  15% Solutions show that there is no reason to wait around, feel powerless, or fearful. They help people pick it up a level. They get individuals and the group to focus on what is within their discretion instead of what they cannot change.  With a very simple question, you can flip the conversation to what can be done and find solutions to big problems that are often distributed widely in places not known in advance. Shifting a few grains of sand may trigger a landslide and change the whole landscape.

25. How-Now-Wow Matrix

The problem-solving process is often creative, as complex problems usually require a change of thinking and creative response in order to find the best solutions. While it’s common for the first stages to encourage creative thinking, groups can often gravitate to familiar solutions when it comes to the end of the process. 

When selecting solutions, you don’t want to lose your creative energy! The How-Now-Wow Matrix from Gamestorming is a great problem-solving activity that enables a group to stay creative and think out of the box when it comes to selecting the right solution for a given problem.

Problem-solving techniques that encourage creative thinking and the ideation and selection of new solutions can be the most effective in organisational change. Give the How-Now-Wow Matrix a go, and not just for how pleasant it is to say out loud. 

How-Now-Wow Matrix   #gamestorming   #idea generation   #remote-friendly   When people want to develop new ideas, they most often think out of the box in the brainstorming or divergent phase. However, when it comes to convergence, people often end up picking ideas that are most familiar to them. This is called a ‘creative paradox’ or a ‘creadox’. The How-Now-Wow matrix is an idea selection tool that breaks the creadox by forcing people to weigh each idea on 2 parameters.

26. Impact and Effort Matrix

All problem-solving techniques hope to not only find solutions to a given problem or challenge but to find the best solution. When it comes to finding a solution, groups are invited to put on their decision-making hats and really think about how a proposed idea would work in practice. 

The Impact and Effort Matrix is one of the problem-solving techniques that fall into this camp, empowering participants to first generate ideas and then categorize them into a 2×2 matrix based on impact and effort.

Activities that invite critical thinking while remaining simple are invaluable. Use the Impact and Effort Matrix to move from ideation and towards evaluating potential solutions before then committing to them. 

Impact and Effort Matrix   #gamestorming   #decision making   #action   #remote-friendly   In this decision-making exercise, possible actions are mapped based on two factors: effort required to implement and potential impact. Categorizing ideas along these lines is a useful technique in decision making, as it obliges contributors to balance and evaluate suggested actions before committing to them.

27. Dotmocracy

If you’ve followed each of the problem-solving steps with your group successfully, you should move towards the end of your process with heaps of possible solutions developed with a specific problem in mind. But how do you help a group go from ideation to putting a solution into action? 

Dotmocracy – or Dot Voting -is a tried and tested method of helping a team in the problem-solving process make decisions and put actions in place with a degree of oversight and consensus. 

One of the problem-solving techniques that should be in every facilitator’s toolbox, Dot Voting is fast and effective and can help identify the most popular and best solutions and help bring a group to a decision effectively. 

Dotmocracy   #action   #decision making   #group prioritization   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Dotmocracy is a simple method for group prioritization or decision-making. It is not an activity on its own, but a method to use in processes where prioritization or decision-making is the aim. The method supports a group to quickly see which options are most popular or relevant. The options or ideas are written on post-its and stuck up on a wall for the whole group to see. Each person votes for the options they think are the strongest, and that information is used to inform a decision.

All facilitators know that warm-ups and icebreakers are useful for any workshop or group process. Problem-solving workshops are no different.

Use these problem-solving techniques to warm up a group and prepare them for the rest of the process. Activating your group by tapping into some of the top problem-solving skills can be one of the best ways to see great outcomes from your session.

• Check-in/Check-out
• Doodling Together
• Show and Tell
• Constellations
• Draw a Tree

28. Check-in / Check-out

Solid processes are planned from beginning to end, and the best facilitators know that setting the tone and establishing a safe, open environment can be integral to a successful problem-solving process.

Check-in / Check-out is a great way to begin and/or bookend a problem-solving workshop. Checking in to a session emphasizes that everyone will be seen, heard, and expected to contribute. 

If you are running a series of meetings, setting a consistent pattern of checking in and checking out can really help your team get into a groove. We recommend this opening-closing activity for small to medium-sized groups though it can work with large groups if they’re disciplined!

Check-in / Check-out   #team   #opening   #closing   #hyperisland   #remote-friendly   Either checking-in or checking-out is a simple way for a team to open or close a process, symbolically and in a collaborative way. Checking-in/out invites each member in a group to be present, seen and heard, and to express a reflection or a feeling. Checking-in emphasizes presence, focus and group commitment; checking-out emphasizes reflection and symbolic closure.

29. Doodling Together  

Thinking creatively and not being afraid to make suggestions are important problem-solving skills for any group or team, and warming up by encouraging these behaviors is a great way to start. 

Doodling Together is one of our favorite creative ice breaker games – it’s quick, effective, and fun and can make all following problem-solving steps easier by encouraging a group to collaborate visually. By passing cards and adding additional items as they go, the workshop group gets into a groove of co-creation and idea development that is crucial to finding solutions to problems. 

Doodling Together   #collaboration   #creativity   #teamwork   #fun   #team   #visual methods   #energiser   #icebreaker   #remote-friendly   Create wild, weird and often funny postcards together & establish a group’s creative confidence.

30. Show and Tell

You might remember some version of Show and Tell from being a kid in school and it’s a great problem-solving activity to kick off a session.

Asking participants to prepare a little something before a workshop by bringing an object for show and tell can help them warm up before the session has even begun! Games that include a physical object can also help encourage early engagement before moving onto more big-picture thinking.

By asking your participants to tell stories about why they chose to bring a particular item to the group, you can help teams see things from new perspectives and see both differences and similarities in the way they approach a topic. Great groundwork for approaching a problem-solving process as a team! 

Show and Tell   #gamestorming   #action   #opening   #meeting facilitation   Show and Tell taps into the power of metaphors to reveal players’ underlying assumptions and associations around a topic The aim of the game is to get a deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives on anything—a new project, an organizational restructuring, a shift in the company’s vision or team dynamic.

31. Constellations

Who doesn’t love stars? Constellations is a great warm-up activity for any workshop as it gets people up off their feet, energized, and ready to engage in new ways with established topics. It’s also great for showing existing beliefs, biases, and patterns that can come into play as part of your session.

Using warm-up games that help build trust and connection while also allowing for non-verbal responses can be great for easing people into the problem-solving process and encouraging engagement from everyone in the group. Constellations is great in large spaces that allow for movement and is definitely a practical exercise to allow the group to see patterns that are otherwise invisible. 

Constellations   #trust   #connection   #opening   #coaching   #patterns   #system   Individuals express their response to a statement or idea by standing closer or further from a central object. Used with teams to reveal system, hidden patterns, perspectives.

32. Draw a Tree

Problem-solving games that help raise group awareness through a central, unifying metaphor can be effective ways to warm-up a group in any problem-solving model.

Draw a Tree is a simple warm-up activity you can use in any group and which can provide a quick jolt of energy. Start by asking your participants to draw a tree in just 45 seconds – they can choose whether it will be abstract or realistic. 

Once the timer is up, ask the group how many people included the roots of the tree and use this as a means to discuss how we can ignore important parts of any system simply because they are not visible.

All problem-solving strategies are made more effective by thinking of problems critically and by exposing things that may not normally come to light. Warm-up games like Draw a Tree are great in that they quickly demonstrate some key problem-solving skills in an accessible and effective way.

Draw a Tree   #thiagi   #opening   #perspectives   #remote-friendly   With this game you can raise awarness about being more mindful, and aware of the environment we live in.

Each step of the problem-solving workshop benefits from an intelligent deployment of activities, games, and techniques. Bringing your session to an effective close helps ensure that solutions are followed through on and that you also celebrate what has been achieved.

Here are some problem-solving activities you can use to effectively close a workshop or meeting and ensure the great work you’ve done can continue afterward.

• One Breath Feedback
• Who What When Matrix
• Response Cards

How do I conclude a problem-solving process?

All good things must come to an end. With the bulk of the work done, it can be tempting to conclude your workshop swiftly and without a moment to debrief and align. This can be problematic in that it doesn’t allow your team to fully process the results or reflect on the process.

At the end of an effective session, your team will have gone through a process that, while productive, can be exhausting. It’s important to give your group a moment to take a breath, ensure that they are clear on future actions, and provide short feedback before leaving the space. 

The primary purpose of any problem-solving method is to generate solutions and then implement them. Be sure to take the opportunity to ensure everyone is aligned and ready to effectively implement the solutions you produced in the workshop.

Remember that every process can be improved and by giving a short moment to collect feedback in the session, you can further refine your problem-solving methods and see further success in the future too.

33. One Breath Feedback

Maintaining attention and focus during the closing stages of a problem-solving workshop can be tricky and so being concise when giving feedback can be important. It’s easy to incur “death by feedback” should some team members go on for too long sharing their perspectives in a quick feedback round. 

One Breath Feedback is a great closing activity for workshops. You give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback on what they’ve done but only in the space of a single breath. This keeps feedback short and to the point and means that everyone is encouraged to provide the most important piece of feedback to them. 

One breath feedback   #closing   #feedback   #action   This is a feedback round in just one breath that excels in maintaining attention: each participants is able to speak during just one breath … for most people that’s around 20 to 25 seconds … unless of course you’ve been a deep sea diver in which case you’ll be able to do it for longer.

34. Who What When Matrix 

Matrices feature as part of many effective problem-solving strategies and with good reason. They are easily recognizable, simple to use, and generate results.

The Who What When Matrix is a great tool to use when closing your problem-solving session by attributing a who, what and when to the actions and solutions you have decided upon. The resulting matrix is a simple, easy-to-follow way of ensuring your team can move forward. 

Great solutions can’t be enacted without action and ownership. Your problem-solving process should include a stage for allocating tasks to individuals or teams and creating a realistic timeframe for those solutions to be implemented or checked out. Use this method to keep the solution implementation process clear and simple for all involved. 

Who/What/When Matrix   #gamestorming   #action   #project planning   With Who/What/When matrix, you can connect people with clear actions they have defined and have committed to.

35. Response cards

Group discussion can comprise the bulk of most problem-solving activities and by the end of the process, you might find that your team is talked out! 

Providing a means for your team to give feedback with short written notes can ensure everyone is head and can contribute without the need to stand up and talk. Depending on the needs of the group, giving an alternative can help ensure everyone can contribute to your problem-solving model in the way that makes the most sense for them.

Response Cards is a great way to close a workshop if you are looking for a gentle warm-down and want to get some swift discussion around some of the feedback that is raised. 

Response Cards   #debriefing   #closing   #structured sharing   #questions and answers   #thiagi   #action   It can be hard to involve everyone during a closing of a session. Some might stay in the background or get unheard because of louder participants. However, with the use of Response Cards, everyone will be involved in providing feedback or clarify questions at the end of a session.

Save time and effort discovering the right solutions

A structured problem solving process is a surefire way of solving tough problems, discovering creative solutions and driving organizational change. But how can you design for successful outcomes?

With SessionLab, it’s easy to design engaging workshops that deliver results. Drag, drop and reorder blocks  to build your agenda. When you make changes or update your agenda, your session  timing   adjusts automatically , saving you time on manual adjustments.

Collaborating with stakeholders or clients? Share your agenda with a single click and collaborate in real-time. No more sending documents back and forth over email.

Explore  how to use SessionLab  to design effective problem solving workshops or  watch this five minute video  to see the planner in action!

Over to you

The problem-solving process can often be as complicated and multifaceted as the problems they are set-up to solve. With the right problem-solving techniques and a mix of creative exercises designed to guide discussion and generate purposeful ideas, we hope we’ve given you the tools to find the best solutions as simply and easily as possible.

Is there a problem-solving technique that you are missing here? Do you have a favorite activity or method you use when facilitating? Let us know in the comments below, we’d love to hear from you! 

thank you very much for these excellent techniques

Certainly wonderful article, very detailed. Shared!

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Going from a mere idea to a workshop that delivers results for your clients can feel like a daunting task. In this piece, we will shine a light on all the work behind the scenes and help you learn how to plan a workshop from start to finish. On a good day, facilitation can feel like effortless magic, but that is mostly the result of backstage work, foresight, and a lot of careful planning. Read on to learn a step-by-step approach to breaking the process of planning a workshop into small, manageable chunks.  The flow starts with the first meeting with a client to define the purposes of a workshop.…

How does learning work? A clever 9-year-old once told me: “I know I am learning something new when I am surprised.” The science of adult learning tells us that, in order to learn new skills (which, unsurprisingly, is harder for adults to do than kids) grown-ups need to first get into a specific headspace.  In a business, this approach is often employed in a training session where employees learn new skills or work on professional development. But how do you ensure your training is effective? In this guide, we'll explore how to create an effective training session plan and run engaging training sessions. As team leader, project manager, or consultant,…

Effective online tools are a necessity for smooth and engaging virtual workshops and meetings. But how do you choose the right ones? Do you sometimes feel that the good old pen and paper or MS Office toolkit and email leaves you struggling to stay on top of managing and delivering your workshop? Fortunately, there are plenty of online tools to make your life easier when you need to facilitate a meeting and lead workshops. In this post, we’ll share our favorite online tools you can use to make your job as a facilitator easier. In fact, there are plenty of free online workshop tools and meeting facilitation software you can…

Design your next workshop with SessionLab

Join the 150,000 facilitators using SessionLab

Sign up for free

Login and registration

• Forgot Username?
• Forgot Password?

The PDCA cycle or Deming wheel: how and why to use it

Origins of the pdca cycle.

The PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle is often associated with W. Edwards Deming, but its origins can be traced through several significant contributions in the field of quality and management.

Walter A. Shewhart : In the 1920s and 1930s, statistician Walter A. Shewhart, then at Bell Laboratories, developed concepts around statistical process control and introduced a preliminary version of the cycle, often referred to as the Plan-Do-See cycle. Shewhart is often considered the "father of statistical quality control".

W. Edwards Deming : Deming, who was a protégé of Shewhart, adopted and adapted these ideas. Although the cycle is often called the "Deming Cycle", he always acknowledged Shewhart for his original contribution. Deming introduced this cycle in Japan in the 1950s, where it became a central element of post-World War II reconstruction and quality improvement efforts. In Japan, it was named the "PDCA cycle" and is sometimes called the "Deming-Shewhart Cycle".

Adoption in Japan : After World War II, Japan sought to rebuild its industry. As part of this initiative, many experts, including Deming, were invited to give lectures and training. The PDCA cycle was embraced by Japanese companies and became a fundamental component of their continuous improvement efforts, especially within the Total Quality Management (TQM) movement.

Over the years, PDCA has been incorporated into many continuous improvement methodologies and frameworks, such as Six Sigma, Lean Management, and other quality management systems.

It's important to note that, although the PDCA cycle is often attributed to Deming, he always emphasized the importance of Shewhart's work and often preferred to call it the "Shewhart Cycle".

Steps of the PDCA cycle

The four steps of PDCA are:

• Identify a problem or an improvement opportunity.
• Analyze the current situation.
• Set specific objectives.
• Propose solutions and prepare an action plan.
• Implement the action plan on a small scale, in a controlled setting (like a trial or test).
• Gather data to analyze the effects of the changes.
• Analyze the collected data.
• Compare the achieved results with the set objectives.
• Identify deviations and the causes of these deviations.
• If the objectives are met, standardize the changes and deploy on a larger scale.
• If objectives are not met, understand why and return to the "Plan" step to refine or rethink the solution.

The PDCA cycle is designed to be continuously repeated for continuous improvements. By repeating this cycle, organizations can identify and fix issues, improve processes, and ensure that improvements are effective and sustainable.

For which types of problems is the PDCA cycle suitable?

The PDCA is particularly well-suited to the following situations and problems:

Recurring problems : When an issue recurs frequently and its underlying cause is not clearly identified, the PDCA is useful for diagnosing, addressing, and preventing the issue.

Problems requiring incremental improvements : For situations that benefit from continuous adjustments rather than major overhauls, PDCA offers a framework for iterative improvement.

Situations with quantifiable data : The PDCA works especially well when outcomes or impacts can be quantitatively measured. This allows for objective evaluation during the "Check" phase.

Situations requiring a structured approach : For organizations or teams that struggle with addressing issues in a systematic manner, PDCA offers a clear and structured framework.

Changing environments : In situations where the environment is constantly evolving, PDCA enables organizations to adapt swiftly, adjust their plans, and act accordingly.

Quality improvement projects : Given its origins in quality control, the PDCA is naturally suited to efforts aimed at improving the quality of processes or products.

Here are situations where the PDCA cycle might not be the best method:

Urgent problems requiring immediate action : In crisis situations where swift action is needed, the systematic methodology of PDCA might slow down decision-making.

Highly complex problems with many interdependent variables : Although PDCA can be combined with other tools to address complex issues, on its own, it might oversimplify some situations.

Situations requiring radical innovation : PDCA focuses on continuous improvement, which might limit the "outside-the-box" thinking necessary for major innovations.

In summary, PDCA is a versatile tool suitable for many situations, but it's not universal. It's essential to assess the context and nature of the problem before choosing the best method or approach.

Using PDCA in innovation

PDCA can be employed in innovation, especially when introducing a new product in a production environment or implementing a new production process/equipment. We aren't including the product or process development part, which generally employs more specific methods. Here's how introducing new products or processes in production can be tackled.

Analysis of current capabilities : Examine your current facilities, equipment, and staff skills to determine if any changes are needed to produce the new product or to accommodate the new process/equipment.

Identification of needs : Based on the analysis, identify the requirements in terms of staff training, purchasing additional equipment, or modifications to the facilities.

Resource planning : Create a detailed plan for acquiring the necessary resources, whether it's material, training, labor, or time.

Defining success criteria : Set KPIs (key performance indicators) to measure the success of introducing the new product or process/equipment in production.

Implementation : Acquire the planned resources, train staff if necessary, and start producing the new product or implement the new process/equipment.

Monitoring : During production, ensure you closely monitor operations, especially in the early stages, to quickly identify any issues.

Performance measurement : Use the KPIs established during the planning phase to measure the success of introducing the new product or process/equipment in production.

Feedback collection : Gather feedback from production staff on potential problems, inefficiencies, or areas for improvement. They can often provide valuable insights as they are on the front lines.

Analysis and optimization : Based on measured performance and feedback received, identify areas for improvement or correction. This might include adjustments to machines, changes in workflow, or additional training sessions for staff.

Standardization : Once the new product is efficiently produced or the new process/equipment is fully integrated and working well, document the procedures and train all relevant staff to ensure consistency and efficiency.

Main difference between PDCA and other problem-solving methods

The primary difference between PDCA and other problem-solving methods like DMAIC or 8D lies in two major aspects:

Level of detail and flexibility :

• PDCA is a general, flexible framework that can be adapted to a myriad of situations. Its simplicity allows for rapid and reactive deployment.
• On the other hand, DMAIC and 8D are more prescriptive methodologies with detailed steps, specifically designed to tackle and solve complex problems using specific tools and analyses.

Type of improvement :

• PDCA is oriented towards incremental and continuous improvements, ideal for regular adjustments based on feedback and observations.
• DMAIC and 8D, meanwhile, are often used for more radical transformations or to address specific and complex problems that require deep understanding and a structured solution to ensure lasting resolution.

Thus, while PDCA lends itself to regular adjustments and continuous improvements, DMAIC and 8D cater to more specific and complex challenges with a more rigid structure.

You may also access our unique directory of management best practices by function and industry

When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.

Related Posts

A3 is a principle, not a problem-solving method !!

The 5 whys method: how and when to use it, 5w2h or 5w1h methods: how and when to use them, 8d method (8 disciplines), ishikawa diagram and root cause analysis, comparison of problem-solving methods and techniques, continuous improvement process : a challenge for significant benefits, dmaic process: a methodology to implement six sigma, what is an operational audit of the organisation, improvement and innovation excellence.

What are the 4 approaches to problem-solving?

Here is an attempt to classify these approaches into 4 categories – system centric, problem centric, solution centric and solver centric approach.

What is problem-solving method in physics?

The strategy we would like you to learn has five major steps: Focus the Problem, Physics Description, Plan a Solution, Execute the Plan, and Evaluate the Solution. Let’s take a detailed look at each of these steps and then do an sample problem following the strategy.

What are the approaches of problem-solving?

• Step 1: Identify and define the problem. State the problem as clearly as possible.
• Step 2: Generate possible solutions.
• Step 3: Evaluate alternatives.
• Step 4: Decide on a solution.
• Step 5: Implement the solution.
• Step 6: Evaluate the outcome.

What are the three 3 approach for problem-solving?

Stop 1: Problem (Define the problems in the case.) Stop 2: Cause of the Problem (Identify the OB concepts or theories to use to solve the problem.) Stop 3: Recommendation (Explain what you would do to correct the situation.)

Who is the father of problem solving method?

George Polya, known as the father of modern problem solving, did extensive studies and wrote numerous mathematical papers and three books about problem solving.

How do you solve numerical problems in physics?

What are the 7 steps of problem-solving?

• 7 Steps for Effective Problem Solving.
• Step 1: Identifying the Problem.
• Step 2: Defining Goals.
• Step 3: Brainstorming.
• Step 4: Assessing Alternatives.
• Step 5: Choosing the Solution.
• Step 6: Active Execution of the Chosen Solution.
• Step 7: Evaluation.

What are the six common problem-solving approaches?

The six-step model is a tried-and-tested approach. Its steps include defining a problem, analyzing the problem, identifying possible solutions, choosing the best solution, planning your course of action, and finally implementing the solution while monitoring its effectiveness.

Why is a problem-solving approach important?

Why is it important? Employers like to see good problem solving skills because it also helps to show them you have a range of other competencies such as logic, creativity, resilience, imagination, lateral thinking and determination. It is a vital skills for your professional and personal life.

Which are the 2 approaches in problem solving?

We must first define a process to determine which skills are the most important skills we need for our particular problem. Basically, there are two steps to solving problems, the first is to recognize the problem, and the second is to find the right solution.

What are the 5 problem solving techniques?

• Step 1: Identify the Problem.
• Step 2: Generate potential solutions.
• Step 3: Choose one solution.
• Step 4: Implement the solution you’ve chosen.
• Step 5: Evaluate results.
• Next Steps.

What is problem solving method with example?

Problem solving is a highly sought-after skill. There are many techniques to problem solving. Examples include trial and error, difference reduction, means-ends analysis, working backwards, and analogies.

What is the first step in the problem-solving approach?

The first step of the problem solving process is to identify and define the problem. The second step, which is to analyze the problem, involves gathering information, sorting through relevant and irrelevant information, and evaluating the source of the problem by asking the Five W’s: who, what, where, when, and why.

How many tools are used for problem-solving?

The problem solving tools include three unique categories: problem solving diagrams, problem solving mind maps, and problem solving software solutions. They include: Fishbone diagrams. Flowcharts.

What is the problem-solving cycle?

The cycle is identify the problem, brainstorm ideas, weigh pros and cons, overcome obstacles, action steps, and then to reflect on the whole situation.

What is problem-solving PDF?

Problem-solving is a process, which involves systematic observation and critical thinking to find an appropriate solution or way to reach the desired goal. The framework of problem-solving consisted of two major skills: observation and critical thinking skill.

What is problem-solving approach in teaching?

In Teaching Through Problem-solving (TTP), students learn new mathematics by solving problems. Students grapple with a novel problem, present and discuss solution strategies, and together build the next concept or procedure in the mathematics curriculum.

What is Polya’s 4 steps in problem-solving?

Nearly 100 years ago, a man named George Polya designed a four-step method to solve all kinds of problems: Understand the problem, make a plan, execute the plan, and look back and reflect. Because the method is simple and generalizes well, it has become a classic method for solving problems.

How can I understand physics easily?

• Mastering the basics is necessary: One of the easiest ways of learning physics is to master the basic theories.
• Simplification is a Key Rule:
• Create Flashcards:
• Make Math Your Strength:
• A good tutor makes a BIG difference!
• Use diagrammatic representations to learn the concepts:

How can I study physics effectively?

• Make use of the preview that you did prior to the class. Again,
• Read the homework problems first.
• Read actively with questions in mind.
• Stop periodically and pointedly recall the material that you have.
• During your reading you will notice sections, equations, or ideas that.

How do you create a strong concept in physics?

• Master the Basics.
• Learn How to Basic Equations Came About.
• Always Account For Small Details.
• Work on Improving Your Math Skills.
• Simplify the Situations.
• Use Drawings.
• Always Double-Check Your Answers.
• Use Every Source of Physics Help Available.

What is 5P problem-solving?

People, Process, Platform, Partnership, and Problem Solving: The 5P Approach to Strengthening Knowledge Management Capacity and Culture | USAID Learning Lab.

How many steps of problem-solving are there?

All six steps are followed in order – as a cycle, beginning with “1. Identify the Problem.” Each step must be completed before moving on to the next step. redefine the problem.

Why following the 6 steps of problem-solving process is important?

Advantages of Six-Step Problem Solving The Six-Step method provides a focused procedure for the problem solving (PS) group. It ensures consistency, as everyone understands the approach to be used. By using data, it helps eliminate bias and preconceptions, leading to greater objectivity.

Who created the six-step problem-solving model?

In this article, we will introduce the six-step problem solving process defined by Edgar Schein, so that teams trained in this can find the best solution to a problem and create an action plan.

Privacy Overview

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Share Podcast

Do You Understand the Problem You’re Trying to Solve?

To solve tough problems at work, first ask these questions.

• Apple Podcasts
• Google Podcasts

Problem solving skills are invaluable in any job. But all too often, we jump to find solutions to a problem without taking time to really understand the dilemma we face, according to Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg , an expert in innovation and the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

In this episode, you’ll learn how to reframe tough problems by asking questions that reveal all the factors and assumptions that contribute to the situation. You’ll also learn why searching for just one root cause can be misleading.

Key episode topics include: leadership, decision making and problem solving, power and influence, business management.

HBR On Leadership curates the best case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, to help you unlock the best in those around you. New episodes every week.

• Listen to the original HBR IdeaCast episode: The Secret to Better Problem Solving (2016)
• Find more episodes of HBR IdeaCast
• Discover 100 years of Harvard Business Review articles, case studies, podcasts, and more at HBR.org .

HANNAH BATES: Welcome to HBR on Leadership , case studies and conversations with the world’s top business and management experts, hand-selected to help you unlock the best in those around you.

Problem solving skills are invaluable in any job. But even the most experienced among us can fall into the trap of solving the wrong problem.

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg says that all too often, we jump to find solutions to a problem – without taking time to really understand what we’re facing.

He’s an expert in innovation, and he’s the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

  In this episode, you’ll learn how to reframe tough problems, by asking questions that reveal all the factors and assumptions that contribute to the situation. You’ll also learn why searching for one root cause can be misleading. And you’ll learn how to use experimentation and rapid prototyping as problem-solving tools.

This episode originally aired on HBR IdeaCast in December 2016. Here it is.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Welcome to the HBR IdeaCast from Harvard Business Review. I’m Sarah Green Carmichael.

Problem solving is popular. People put it on their resumes. Managers believe they excel at it. Companies count it as a key proficiency. We solve customers’ problems.

The problem is we often solve the wrong problems. Albert Einstein and Peter Drucker alike have discussed the difficulty of effective diagnosis. There are great frameworks for getting teams to attack true problems, but they’re often hard to do daily and on the fly. That’s where our guest comes in.

Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg is a consultant who helps companies and managers reframe their problems so they can come up with an effective solution faster. He asks the question “Are You Solving The Right Problems?” in the January-February 2017 issue of Harvard Business Review. Thomas, thank you so much for coming on the HBR IdeaCast .

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Thanks for inviting me.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, I thought maybe we could start by talking about the problem of talking about problem reframing. What is that exactly?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Basically, when people face a problem, they tend to jump into solution mode to rapidly, and very often that means that they don’t really understand, necessarily, the problem they’re trying to solve. And so, reframing is really a– at heart, it’s a method that helps you avoid that by taking a second to go in and ask two questions, basically saying, first of all, wait. What is the problem we’re trying to solve? And then crucially asking, is there a different way to think about what the problem actually is?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, I feel like so often when this comes up in meetings, you know, someone says that, and maybe they throw out the Einstein quote about you spend an hour of problem solving, you spend 55 minutes to find the problem. And then everyone else in the room kind of gets irritated. So, maybe just give us an example of maybe how this would work in practice in a way that would not, sort of, set people’s teeth on edge, like oh, here Sarah goes again, reframing the whole problem instead of just solving it.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I mean, you’re bringing up something that’s, I think is crucial, which is to create legitimacy for the method. So, one of the reasons why I put out the article is to give people a tool to say actually, this thing is still important, and we need to do it. But I think the really critical thing in order to make this work in a meeting is actually to learn how to do it fast, because if you have the idea that you need to spend 30 minutes in a meeting delving deeply into the problem, I mean, that’s going to be uphill for most problems. So, the critical thing here is really to try to make it a practice you can implement very, very rapidly.

There’s an example that I would suggest memorizing. This is the example that I use to explain very rapidly what it is. And it’s basically, I call it the slow elevator problem. You imagine that you are the owner of an office building, and that your tenants are complaining that the elevator’s slow.

Now, if you take that problem framing for granted, you’re going to start thinking creatively around how do we make the elevator faster. Do we install a new motor? Do we have to buy a new lift somewhere?

The thing is, though, if you ask people who actually work with facilities management, well, they’re going to have a different solution for you, which is put up a mirror next to the elevator. That’s what happens is, of course, that people go oh, I’m busy. I’m busy. I’m– oh, a mirror. Oh, that’s beautiful.

And then they forget time. What’s interesting about that example is that the idea with a mirror is actually a solution to a different problem than the one you first proposed. And so, the whole idea here is once you get good at using reframing, you can quickly identify other aspects of the problem that might be much better to try to solve than the original one you found. It’s not necessarily that the first one is wrong. It’s just that there might be better problems out there to attack that we can, means we can do things much faster, cheaper, or better.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, in that example, I can understand how A, it’s probably expensive to make the elevator faster, so it’s much cheaper just to put up a mirror. And B, maybe the real problem people are actually feeling, even though they’re not articulating it right, is like, I hate waiting for the elevator. But if you let them sort of fix their hair or check their teeth, they’re suddenly distracted and don’t notice.

But if you have, this is sort of a pedestrian example, but say you have a roommate or a spouse who doesn’t clean up the kitchen. Facing that problem and not having your elegant solution already there to highlight the contrast between the perceived problem and the real problem, how would you take a problem like that and attack it using this method so that you can see what some of the other options might be?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Right. So, I mean, let’s say it’s you who have that problem. I would go in and say, first of all, what would you say the problem is? Like, if you were to describe your view of the problem, what would that be?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I hate cleaning the kitchen, and I want someone else to clean it up.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: OK. So, my first observation, you know, that somebody else might not necessarily be your spouse. So, already there, there’s an inbuilt assumption in your question around oh, it has to be my husband who does the cleaning. So, it might actually be worth, already there to say, is that really the only problem you have? That you hate cleaning the kitchen, and you want to avoid it? Or might there be something around, as well, getting a better relationship in terms of how you solve problems in general or establishing a better way to handle small problems when dealing with your spouse?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Or maybe, now that I’m thinking that, maybe the problem is that you just can’t find the stuff in the kitchen when you need to find it.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Right, and so that’s an example of a reframing, that actually why is it a problem that the kitchen is not clean? Is it only because you hate the act of cleaning, or does it actually mean that it just takes you a lot longer and gets a lot messier to actually use the kitchen, which is a different problem. The way you describe this problem now, is there anything that’s missing from that description?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That is a really good question.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Other, basically asking other factors that we are not talking about right now, and I say those because people tend to, when given a problem, they tend to delve deeper into the detail. What often is missing is actually an element outside of the initial description of the problem that might be really relevant to what’s going on. Like, why does the kitchen get messy in the first place? Is it something about the way you use it or your cooking habits? Is it because the neighbor’s kids, kind of, use it all the time?

There might, very often, there might be issues that you’re not really thinking about when you first describe the problem that actually has a big effect on it.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: I think at this point it would be helpful to maybe get another business example, and I’m wondering if you could tell us the story of the dog adoption problem.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Yeah. This is a big problem in the US. If you work in the shelter industry, basically because dogs are so popular, more than 3 million dogs every year enter a shelter, and currently only about half of those actually find a new home and get adopted. And so, this is a problem that has persisted. It’s been, like, a structural problem for decades in this space. In the last three years, where people found new ways to address it.

So a woman called Lori Weise who runs a rescue organization in South LA, and she actually went in and challenged the very idea of what we were trying to do. She said, no, no. The problem we’re trying to solve is not about how to get more people to adopt dogs. It is about keeping the dogs with their first family so they never enter the shelter system in the first place.

In 2013, she started what’s called a Shelter Intervention Program that basically works like this. If a family comes and wants to hand over their dog, these are called owner surrenders. It’s about 30% of all dogs that come into a shelter. All they would do is go up and ask, if you could, would you like to keep your animal? And if they said yes, they would try to fix whatever helped them fix the problem, but that made them turn over this.

And sometimes that might be that they moved into a new building. The landlord required a deposit, and they simply didn’t have the money to put down a deposit. Or the dog might need a $10 rabies shot, but they didn’t know how to get access to a vet.

And so, by instigating that program, just in the first year, she took her, basically the amount of dollars they spent per animal they helped went from something like $85 down to around $60. Just an immediate impact, and her program now is being rolled out, is being supported by the ASPCA, which is one of the big animal welfare stations, and it’s being rolled out to various other places.

And I think what really struck me with that example was this was not dependent on having the internet. This was not, oh, we needed to have everybody mobile before we could come up with this. This, conceivably, we could have done 20 years ago. Only, it only happened when somebody, like in this case Lori, went in and actually rethought what the problem they were trying to solve was in the first place.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, what I also think is so interesting about that example is that when you talk about it, it doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that would have been thought of through other kinds of problem solving methods. There wasn’t necessarily an After Action Review or a 5 Whys exercise or a Six Sigma type intervention. I don’t want to throw those other methods under the bus, but how can you get such powerful results with such a very simple way of thinking about something?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: That was something that struck me as well. This, in a way, reframing and the idea of the problem diagnosis is important is something we’ve known for a long, long time. And we’ve actually have built some tools to help out. If you worked with us professionally, you are familiar with, like, Six Sigma, TRIZ, and so on. You mentioned 5 Whys. A root cause analysis is another one that a lot of people are familiar with.

Those are our good tools, and they’re definitely better than nothing. But what I notice when I work with the companies applying those was those tools tend to make you dig deeper into the first understanding of the problem we have. If it’s the elevator example, people start asking, well, is that the cable strength, or is the capacity of the elevator? That they kind of get caught by the details.

That, in a way, is a bad way to work on problems because it really assumes that there’s like a, you can almost hear it, a root cause. That you have to dig down and find the one true problem, and everything else was just symptoms. That’s a bad way to think about problems because problems tend to be multicausal.

There tend to be lots of causes or levers you can potentially press to address a problem. And if you think there’s only one, if that’s the right problem, that’s actually a dangerous way. And so I think that’s why, that this is a method I’ve worked with over the last five years, trying to basically refine how to make people better at this, and the key tends to be this thing about shifting out and saying, is there a totally different way of thinking about the problem versus getting too caught up in the mechanistic details of what happens.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: What about experimentation? Because that’s another method that’s become really popular with the rise of Lean Startup and lots of other innovation methodologies. Why wouldn’t it have worked to, say, experiment with many different types of fixing the dog adoption problem, and then just pick the one that works the best?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: You could say in the dog space, that’s what’s been going on. I mean, there is, in this industry and a lot of, it’s largely volunteer driven. People have experimented, and they found different ways of trying to cope. And that has definitely made the problem better. So, I wouldn’t say that experimentation is bad, quite the contrary. Rapid prototyping, quickly putting something out into the world and learning from it, that’s a fantastic way to learn more and to move forward.

My point is, though, that I feel we’ve come to rely too much on that. There’s like, if you look at the start up space, the wisdom is now just to put something quickly into the market, and then if it doesn’t work, pivot and just do more stuff. What reframing really is, I think of it as the cognitive counterpoint to prototyping. So, this is really a way of seeing very quickly, like not just working on the solution, but also working on our understanding of the problem and trying to see is there a different way to think about that.

If you only stick with experimentation, again, you tend to sometimes stay too much in the same space trying minute variations of something instead of taking a step back and saying, wait a minute. What is this telling us about what the real issue is?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, to go back to something that we touched on earlier, when we were talking about the completely hypothetical example of a spouse who does not clean the kitchen–

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Completely, completely hypothetical.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Yes. For the record, my husband is a great kitchen cleaner.

You started asking me some questions that I could see immediately were helping me rethink that problem. Is that kind of the key, just having a checklist of questions to ask yourself? How do you really start to put this into practice?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I think there are two steps in that. The first one is just to make yourself better at the method. Yes, you should kind of work with a checklist. In the article, I kind of outlined seven practices that you can use to do this.

But importantly, I would say you have to consider that as, basically, a set of training wheels. I think there’s a big, big danger in getting caught in a checklist. This is something I work with.

My co-author Paddy Miller, it’s one of his insights. That if you start giving people a checklist for things like this, they start following it. And that’s actually a problem, because what you really want them to do is start challenging their thinking.

So the way to handle this is to get some practice using it. Do use the checklist initially, but then try to step away from it and try to see if you can organically make– it’s almost a habit of mind. When you run into a colleague in the hallway and she has a problem and you have five minutes, like, delving in and just starting asking some of those questions and using your intuition to say, wait, how is she talking about this problem? And is there a question or two I can ask her about the problem that can help her rethink it?

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, that is also just a very different approach, because I think in that situation, most of us can’t go 30 seconds without jumping in and offering solutions.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Very true. The drive toward solutions is very strong. And to be clear, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with that if the solutions work. So, many problems are just solved by oh, you know, oh, here’s the way to do that. Great.

But this is really a powerful method for those problems where either it’s something we’ve been banging our heads against tons of times without making progress, or when you need to come up with a really creative solution. When you’re facing a competitor with a much bigger budget, and you know, if you solve the same problem later, you’re not going to win. So, that basic idea of taking that approach to problems can often help you move forward in a different way than just like, oh, I have a solution.

I would say there’s also, there’s some interesting psychological stuff going on, right? Where you may have tried this, but if somebody tries to serve up a solution to a problem I have, I’m often resistant towards them. Kind if like, no, no, no, no, no, no. That solution is not going to work in my world. Whereas if you get them to discuss and analyze what the problem really is, you might actually dig something up.

Let’s go back to the kitchen example. One powerful question is just to say, what’s your own part in creating this problem? It’s very often, like, people, they describe problems as if it’s something that’s inflicted upon them from the external world, and they are innocent bystanders in that.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Right, or crazy customers with unreasonable demands.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Exactly, right. I don’t think I’ve ever met an agency or consultancy that didn’t, like, gossip about their customers. Oh, my god, they’re horrible. That, you know, classic thing, why don’t they want to take more risk? Well, risk is bad.

It’s their business that’s on the line, not the consultancy’s, right? So, absolutely, that’s one of the things when you step into a different mindset and kind of, wait. Oh yeah, maybe I actually am part of creating this problem in a sense, as well. That tends to open some new doors for you to move forward, in a way, with stuff that you may have been struggling with for years.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, we’ve surfaced a couple of questions that are useful. I’m curious to know, what are some of the other questions that you find yourself asking in these situations, given that you have made this sort of mental habit that you do? What are the questions that people seem to find really useful?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: One easy one is just to ask if there are any positive exceptions to the problem. So, was there day where your kitchen was actually spotlessly clean? And then asking, what was different about that day? Like, what happened there that didn’t happen the other days? That can very often point people towards a factor that they hadn’t considered previously.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: We got take-out.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: S,o that is your solution. Take-out from [INAUDIBLE]. That might have other problems.

Another good question, and this is a little bit more high level. It’s actually more making an observation about labeling how that person thinks about the problem. And what I mean with that is, we have problem categories in our head. So, if I say, let’s say that you describe a problem to me and say, well, we have a really great product and are, it’s much better than our previous product, but people aren’t buying it. I think we need to put more marketing dollars into this.

Now you can go in and say, that’s interesting. This sounds like you’re thinking of this as a communications problem. Is there a different way of thinking about that? Because you can almost tell how, when the second you say communications, there are some ideas about how do you solve a communications problem. Typically with more communication.

And what you might do is go in and suggest, well, have you considered that it might be, say, an incentive problem? Are there incentives on behalf of the purchasing manager at your clients that are obstructing you? Might there be incentive issues with your own sales force that makes them want to sell the old product instead of the new one?

So literally, just identifying what type of problem does this person think about, and is there different potential way of thinking about it? Might it be an emotional problem, a timing problem, an expectations management problem? Thinking about what label of what type of problem that person is kind of thinking as it of.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: That’s really interesting, too, because I think so many of us get requests for advice that we’re really not qualified to give. So, maybe the next time that happens, instead of muddying my way through, I will just ask some of those questions that we talked about instead.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: That sounds like a good idea.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: So, Thomas, this has really helped me reframe the way I think about a couple of problems in my own life, and I’m just wondering. I know you do this professionally, but is there a problem in your life that thinking this way has helped you solve?

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: I’ve, of course, I’ve been swallowing my own medicine on this, too, and I think I have, well, maybe two different examples, and in one case somebody else did the reframing for me. But in one case, when I was younger, I often kind of struggled a little bit. I mean, this is my teenage years, kind of hanging out with my parents. I thought they were pretty annoying people. That’s not really fair, because they’re quite wonderful, but that’s what life is when you’re a teenager.

And one of the things that struck me, suddenly, and this was kind of the positive exception was, there was actually an evening where we really had a good time, and there wasn’t a conflict. And the core thing was, I wasn’t just seeing them in their old house where I grew up. It was, actually, we were at a restaurant. And it suddenly struck me that so much of the sometimes, kind of, a little bit, you love them but they’re annoying kind of dynamic, is tied to the place, is tied to the setting you are in.

And of course, if– you know, I live abroad now, if I visit my parents and I stay in my old bedroom, you know, my mother comes in and wants to wake me up in the morning. Stuff like that, right? And it just struck me so, so clearly that it’s– when I change this setting, if I go out and have dinner with them at a different place, that the dynamic, just that dynamic disappears.

SARAH GREEN CARMICHAEL: Well, Thomas, this has been really, really helpful. Thank you for talking with me today.

THOMAS WEDELL-WEDELLSBORG: Thank you, Sarah.  

HANNAH BATES: That was Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg in conversation with Sarah Green Carmichael on the HBR IdeaCast. He’s an expert in problem solving and innovation, and he’s the author of the book, What’s Your Problem?: To Solve Your Toughest Problems, Change the Problems You Solve .

We’ll be back next Wednesday with another hand-picked conversation about leadership from the Harvard Business Review. If you found this episode helpful, share it with your friends and colleagues, and follow our show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. While you’re there, be sure to leave us a review.

We’re a production of Harvard Business Review. If you want more podcasts, articles, case studies, books, and videos like this, find it all at HBR dot org.

This episode was produced by Anne Saini, and me, Hannah Bates. Ian Fox is our editor. Music by Coma Media. Special thanks to Maureen Hoch, Adi Ignatius, Karen Player, Ramsey Khabbaz, Nicole Smith, Anne Bartholomew, and you – our listener.

See you next week.

• Subscribe On:

Latest in this series

This article is about leadership.

• Decision making and problem solving
• Power and influence
• Business management

Partner Center

• Open access
• Published: 17 February 2022

Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review

• Joan Carles Trullàs   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7380-3475 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Carles Blay   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3962-5887 1 , 4 ,
• Elisabet Sarri   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2435-399X 3 &
• Ramon Pujol   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2527-385X 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  22 , Article number:  104 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

31k Accesses

78 Citations

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Problem-based learning (PBL) is a pedagogical approach that shifts the role of the teacher to the student (student-centered) and is based on self-directed learning. Although PBL has been adopted in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, the effectiveness of the method is still under discussion. The author’s purpose was to appraise available international evidence concerning to the effectiveness and usefulness of PBL methodology in undergraduate medical teaching programs.

The authors applied the Arksey and O’Malley framework to undertake a scoping review. The search was carried out in February 2021 in PubMed and Web of Science including all publications in English and Spanish with no limits on publication date, study design or country of origin.

The literature search identified one hundred and twenty-four publications eligible for this review. Despite the fact that this review included many studies, their design was heterogeneous and only a few provided a high scientific evidence methodology (randomized design and/or systematic reviews with meta-analysis). Furthermore, most were single-center experiences with small sample size and there were no large multi-center studies. PBL methodology obtained a high level of satisfaction, especially among students. It was more effective than other more traditional (or lecture-based methods) at improving social and communication skills, problem-solving and self-learning skills. Knowledge retention and academic performance weren’t worse (and in many studies were better) than with traditional methods. PBL was not universally widespread, probably because requires greater human resources and continuous training for its implementation.

PBL is an effective and satisfactory methodology for medical education. It is likely that through PBL medical students will not only acquire knowledge but also other competencies that are needed in medical professionalism.

Peer Review reports

There has always been enormous interest in identifying the best learning methods. In the mid-twentieth century, US educator Edgar Dale proposed which actions would lead to deeper learning than others and published the well-known (and at the same time controversial) “Cone of Experience or Cone of Dale”. At the apex of the cone are oral representations (verbal descriptions, written descriptions, etc.) and at the base is direct experience (based on a person carrying out the activity that they aim to learn), which represents the greatest depth of our learning. In other words, each level of the cone corresponds to various learning methods. At the base are the most effective, participative methods (what we do and what we say) and at the apex are the least effective, abstract methods (what we read and what we hear) [ 1 ]. In 1990, psychologist George Miller proposed a framework pyramid to assess clinical competence. At the lowest level of the pyramid is knowledge (knows), followed by the competence (knows how), execution (shows how) and finally the action (does) [ 2 ]. Both Miller’s pyramid and Dale’s cone propose a very efficient way of training and, at the same time, of evaluation. Miller suggested that the learning curve passes through various levels, from the acquisition of theoretical knowledge to knowing how to put this knowledge into practice and demonstrate it. Dale stated that to remember a high percentage of the acquired knowledge, a theatrical representation should be carried out or real experiences should be simulated. It is difficult to situate methodologies such as problem-based learning (PBL), case-based learning (CBL) and team-based learning (TBL) in the context of these learning frameworks.

In the last 50 years, various university education models have emerged and have attempted to reconcile teaching with learning, according to the principle that students should lead their own learning process. Perhaps one of the most successful models is PBL that came out of the English-speaking environment. There are many descriptions of PBL in the literature, but in practice there is great variability in what people understand by this methodology. The original conception of PBL as an educational strategy in medicine was initiated at McMaster University (Canada) in 1969, leaving aside the traditional methodology (which is often based on lectures) and introducing student-centered learning. The new formulation of medical education proposed by McMaster did not separate the basic sciences from the clinical sciences, and partially abandoned theoretical classes, which were taught after the presentation of the problem. In its original version, PBL is a methodology in which the starting point is a problem or a problematic situation. The situation enables students to develop a hypothesis and identify learning needs so that they can better understand the problem and meet the established learning objectives [ 3 , 4 ]. PBL is taught using small groups (usually around 8–10 students) with a tutor. The aim of the group sessions is to identify a problem or scenario, define the key concepts identified, brainstorm ideas and discuss key learning objectives, research these and share this information with each other at subsequent sessions. Tutors are used to guide students, so they stay on track with the learning objectives of the task. Contemporary medical education also employs other small group learning methods including CBL and TBL. Characteristics common to the pedagogy of both CBL and TBL include the use of an authentic clinical case, active small-group learning, activation of existing knowledge and application of newly acquired knowledge. In CBL students are encouraged to engage in peer learning and apply new knowledge to these authentic clinical problems under the guidance of a facilitator. CBL encourages a structured and critical approach to clinical problem-solving, and, in contrast to PBL, is designed to allow the facilitator to correct and redirect students [ 5 ]. On the other hand, TBL offers a student-centered, instructional approach for large classes of students who are divided into small teams of typically five to seven students to solve clinically relevant problems. The overall similarities between PBL and TBL relate to the use of professionally relevant problems and small group learning, while the main difference relates to one teacher facilitating interactions between multiple self-managed teams in TBL, whereas each small group in PBL is facilitated by one teacher. Further differences are related to mandatory pre-reading assignments in TBL, testing of prior knowledge in TBL and activating prior knowledge in PBL, teacher-initiated clarifying of concepts that students struggled with in TBL versus students-generated issues that need further study in PBL, inter-team discussions in TBL and structured feedback and problems with related questions in TBL [ 6 ].

In the present study we have focused on PBL methodology, and, as attractive as the method may seem, we should consider whether it is really useful and effective as a learning method. Although PBL has been adopted in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, the effectiveness (in terms of academic performance and/or skill improvement) of the method is still under discussion. This is due partly to the methodological difficulty in comparing PBL with traditional curricula based on lectures. To our knowledge, there is no systematic scoping review in the literature that has analyzed these aspects.

The main motivation for carrying out this research and writing this article was scientific but also professional interest. We believe that reviewing the state of the art of this methodology once it was already underway in our young Faculty of Medicine, could allow us to know if we were on the right track and if we should implement changes in the training of future doctors.

The primary goal of this study was to appraise available international evidence concerning to the effectiveness and usefulness of PBL methodology in undergraduate medical teaching programs. As the intention was to synthesize the scattered evidence available, the option was to conduct a scoping review. A scoping study tends to address broader topics where many different study designs might be applicable. Scoping studies may be particularly relevant to disciplines, such as medical education, in which the paucity of randomized controlled trials makes it difficult for researchers to undertake systematic reviews [ 7 , 8 ]. Even though the scoping review methodology is not widely used in medical education, it is well established for synthesizing heterogeneous research evidence [ 9 ].

The specific aims were: 1) to determine the effectiveness of PBL in academic performance (learning and retention of knowledge) in medical education; 2) to determine the effectiveness of PBL in other skills (social and communication skills, problem solving or self-learning) in medical education; 3) to know the level of satisfaction perceived by the medical students (and/or tutors) when they are taught with the PBL methodology (or when they teach in case of tutors).

This review was guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews. The five main stages of the framework are: (1) identifying the research question; (2) ascertaining relevant studies; (3) determining study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results [ 7 ]. We reported our process according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews [ 10 ].

Stage 1: Identifying the research question

With the goals of the study established, the four members of the research team established the research questions. The primary research question was “What is the effectiveness of PBL methodology for learning in undergraduate medicine?” and the secondary question “What is the perception and satisfaction of medical students and tutors in relation to PBL methodology?”.

Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

After the research questions and a search strategy were defined, the searches were conducted in PubMed and Web of Science using the MeSH terms “problem-based learning” and “Medicine” (the Boolean operator “AND” was applied to the search terms). No limits were set on language, publication date, study design or country of origin. The search was carried out on 14th February 2021. Citations were uploaded to the reference manager software Mendeley Desktop (version 1.19.8) for title and abstract screening, and data characterization.

Stage 3: Study selection

The searching strategy in our scoping study generated a total of 2399 references. The literature search and screening of title, abstract and full text for suitability was performed independently by one author (JCT) based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria were: 1) PBL methodology was the major research topic; 2) participants were undergraduate medical students or tutors; 3) the main outcome was academic performance (learning and knowledge retention); 4) the secondary outcomes were one of the following: social and communication skills, problem solving or self-learning and/or student/tutor satisfaction; 5) all types of studies were included including descriptive papers, qualitative, quantitative and mixed studies methods, perspectives, opinion, commentary pieces and editorials. Exclusion criteria were studies including other types of participants such as postgraduate medical students, residents and other health non-medical specialties such as pharmacy, veterinary, dentistry or nursing. Studies published in languages other than Spanish and English were also excluded. Situations in which uncertainty arose, all authors (CB, ES, RP) discussed the publication together to reach a final consensus. The outcomes of the search results and screening are presented in Fig.  1 . One-hundred and twenty-four articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis.

Study flow PRISMA diagram. Details the review process through the different stages of the review; includes the number of records identified, included and excluded

Stage 4: Charting the data

A data extraction table was developed by the research team. Data extracted from each of the 124 publications included general publication details (year, author, and country), sample size, study population, design/methodology, main and secondary outcomes and relevant results and/or conclusions. We compiled all data into a single spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel for coding and analysis. The characteristics and the study subject of the 124 articles included in this review are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 . The detailed results of the Microsoft Excel file is also available in Additional file 1 .

Stage 5: Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

As indicated in the search strategy (Fig.  1 ) this review resulted in the inclusion of 124 publications. Publication years of the final sample ranged from 1990 to 2020, the majority of the publications (51, 41%) were identified for the years 2010–2020 and the years in which there were more publications were 2001, 2009 and 2015. Countries from the six continents were represented in this review. Most of the publications were from Asia (especially China and Saudi Arabia) and North America followed by Europe, and few studies were from Africa, Oceania and South America. The country with more publications was the United States of America ( n  = 27). The most frequent designs of the selected studies were surveys or questionnaires ( n  = 45) and comparative studies ( n  = 48, only 16 were randomized) with traditional or lecture-based learning methodologies (in two studies the comparison was with simulation) and the most frequently measured outcomes were academic performance followed by student satisfaction (48 studies measured more than one outcome). The few studies with the highest level of scientific evidence (systematic review and meta-analysis and randomized studies) were conducted mostly in Asian countries (Tables  1 and 2 ). The study subject was specified in 81 publications finding a high variability but at the same time great representability of almost all disciplines of the medical studies.

The sample size was available in 99 publications and the median [range] of the participants was 132 [14–2061]. According to study population, there were more participants in the students’ focused studies (median 134 and range 16–2061) in comparison with the tutors’ studies (median 53 and range 14–494).

Finally, after reviewing in detail the measured outcomes (main and secondary) according to the study design (Table 2 and Additional file 1 ) we present a narrative overview and a synthesis of the main findings.

Main outcome: academic performance (learning and knowledge retention)

Seventy-one of the 124 publications had learning and/or knowledge retention as a measured outcome, most of them ( n  = 45) were comparative studies with traditional or lecture-based learning and 16 were randomized. These studies were varied in their methodology, were performed in different geographic zones, and normally analyzed the experience of just one education center. Most studies ( n  = 49) reported superiority of PBL in learning and knowledge acquisition [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ] but there was no difference between traditional and PBL curriculums in another 19 studies [ 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 ]. Only three studies reported that PBL was less effective [ 79 , 80 , 81 ], two of them were randomized (in one case favoring simulation-based learning [ 80 ] and another favoring lectures [ 81 ]) and the remaining study was based on tutors’ opinion rather than real academic performance [ 79 ]. It is noteworthy that the four systematic reviews and meta-analysis included in this scoping review, all carried out in China, found that PBL was more effective than lecture-based learning in improving knowledge and other skills (clinical, problem-solving, self-learning and collaborative) [ 40 , 51 , 53 , 58 ]. Another relevant example of the superiority of the PBL method over the traditional method is the experience reported by Hoffman et al. from the University of Missouri-Columbia. The authors analyzed the impact of implementing the PBL methodology in its Faculty of Medicine and revealed an improvement in the academic results that lasted for over a decade [ 31 ].

Secondary outcomes

Social and communication skills.

We found five studies in this scoping review that focused on these outcomes and all of them described that a curriculum centered on PBL seems to instill more confidence in social and communication skills among students. Students perceived PBL positively for teamwork, communication skills and interpersonal relations [ 44 , 45 , 67 , 75 , 82 ].

Student satisfaction

Sixty publications analyzed student satisfaction with PBL methodology. The most frequent methodology were surveys or questionnaires (30 studies) followed by comparative studies with traditional or lecture-based methodology (19 studies, 7 of them were randomized). Almost all the studies (51) have shown that PBL is generally well-received [ 11 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 26 , 29 , 34 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 50 , 56 , 58 , 63 , 64 , 66 , 78 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 ] but in 9 studies the overall satisfaction scores for the PBL program were neutral [ 76 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 , 116 ] or negative [ 117 , 118 ]. Some factors that have been identified as key components for PBL to be successful include: a small group size, the use of scenarios of realistic cases and good management of group dynamics. Despite a mostly positive assessment of the PBL methodology by the students, there were some negative aspects that could be criticized or improved. These include unclear communication of the learning methodology, objectives and assessment method; bad management and organization of the sessions; tutors having little experience of the method; and a lack of standardization in the implementation of the method by the tutors.

Tutor satisfaction

There are only 15 publications that analyze the satisfaction of tutors, most of them surveys or questionnaires [ 85 , 88 , 92 , 98 , 108 , 110 , 119 ]. In comparison with the satisfaction of the students, here the results are more neutral [ 112 , 113 , 115 , 120 , 121 ] and even unfavorable to the PBL methodology in two publications [ 117 , 122 ]. PBL teaching was favored by tutors when the institutions train them in the subject, when there was administrative support and adequate infrastructure and coordination [ 123 ]. In some experiences, the PBL modules created an unacceptable toll of anxiety, unhappiness and strained relations.

Other skills (problem solving and self-learning)

The effectiveness of the PBL methodology has also been explored in other outcomes such as the ability to solve problems and to self-directed learning. All studies have shown that PBL is more effective than lecture-based learning in problem-solving and self-learning skills [ 18 , 24 , 40 , 48 , 67 , 75 , 93 , 104 , 124 ]. One single study found a poor accuracy of the students’ self-assessment when compared to their own performance [ 125 ]. In addition, there are studies that support PBL methodology for integration between basic and clinical sciences [ 126 ].

Finally, other publications have reported the experience of some faculties in the implementation of the PBL methodology. Different experiences have demonstrated that it is both possible and feasible to shift from a traditional curriculum to a PBL program, recognizing that PBL methodology is complex to plan and structure, needs a large number of human and material resources, requiring an immense teacher effort [ 28 , 31 , 94 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 ]. In addition, and despite its cost implication, a PBL curriculum can be successfully implemented in resource-constrained settings [ 134 , 135 ].

We conducted this scoping review to explore the effectiveness and satisfaction of PBL methodology for teaching in undergraduate medicine and, to our knowledge, it is the only study of its kind (systematic scoping review) that has been carried out in the last years. Similarly, Vernon et al. conducted a meta-analysis of articles published between 1970 and 1992 and their results generally supported the superiority of the PBL approach over more traditional methods of medical education [ 136 ]. PBL methodology is implemented in medical studies on the six continents but there is more experience (or at least more publications) from Asian countries and North America. Despite its apparent difficulties on implementation, a PBL curriculum can be successfully implemented in resource-constrained settings [ 134 , 135 ]. Although it is true that the few studies with the highest level of scientific evidence (randomized studies and meta-analysis) were carried out mainly in Asian countries (and some in North America and Europe), there were no significant differences in the main results according to geographical origin.

In this scoping review we have included a large number of publications that, despite their heterogeneity, tend to show favorable results for the usefulness of the PBL methodology in teaching and learning medicine. The results tend to be especially favorable to PBL methodology when it is compared with traditional or lecture-based teaching methods, but when compared with simulation it is not so clear. There are two studies that show neutral [ 71 ] or superior [ 80 ] results to simulation for the acquisition of specific clinical skills. It seems important to highlight that the four meta-analysis included in this review, which included a high number of participants, show results that are clearly favorable to the PBL methodology in terms of knowledge, clinical skills, problem-solving, self-learning and satisfaction [ 40 , 51 , 53 , 58 ].

Regarding the level of satisfaction described in the surveys or questionnaires, the overall satisfaction rate was higher in the PBL students when compared with traditional learning students. Students work in small groups, allowing and promoting teamwork and facilitating social and communication skills. As sessions are more attractive and dynamic than traditional classes, this could lead to a greater degree of motivation for learning.

These satisfaction results are not so favorable when tutors are asked and this may be due to different reasons; first, some studies are from the 90s, when the methodology was not yet fully implemented; second, the number of tutors included in these studies is low; and third, and perhaps most importantly, the complaints are not usually due to the methodology itself, but rather due to lack of administrative support, and/or work overload. PBL methodology implies more human and material resources. The lack of experience in guided self-learning by lecturers requires more training. Some teachers may not feel comfortable with the method and therefore do not apply it correctly.

Despite how effective and/or attractive the PBL methodology may seem, some (not many) authors are clearly detractors and have published opinion articles with fierce criticism to this methodology. Some of the arguments against are as follows: clinical problem solving is the wrong task for preclinical medical students, self-directed learning interpreted as self-teaching is not appropriate in undergraduate medical education, relegation to the role of facilitators is a misuse of the faculty, small-group experience is inherently variable and sometimes dysfunctional, etc. [ 137 ].

In light of the results found in our study, we believe that PBL is an adequate methodology for the training of future doctors and reinforces the idea that the PBL should have an important weight in the curriculum of our medical school. It is likely that training through PBL, the doctors of the future will not only have great knowledge but may also acquire greater capacity for communication, problem solving and self-learning, all of which are characteristics that are required in medical professionalism. For this purpose, Koh et al. analyzed the effect that PBL during medical school had on physician competencies after graduation, finding a positive effect mainly in social and cognitive dimensions [ 138 ].

Despite its defects and limitations, we must not abandon this methodology and, in any case, perhaps PBL should evolve, adapt, and improve to enhance its strengths and improve its weaknesses. It is likely that the new generations, trained in schools using new technologies and methodologies far from lectures, will feel more comfortable (either as students or as tutors) with methodologies more like PBL (small groups and work focused on problems or projects). It would be interesting to examine the implementation of technologies and even social media into PBL sessions, an issue that has been poorly explorer [ 139 ].

Limitations

Scoping reviews are not without limitations. Our review includes 124 articles from the 2399 initially identified and despite our efforts to be as comprehensive as possible, we may have missed some (probably few) articles. Even though this review includes many studies, their design is very heterogeneous, only a few include a large sample size and high scientific evidence methodology. Furthermore, most are single-center experiences and there are no large multi-center studies. Finally, the frequency of the PBL sessions (from once or twice a year to the whole curriculum) was not considered, in part, because most of the revised studies did not specify this information. This factor could affect the efficiency of PBL and the perceptions of students and tutors about PBL. However, the adoption of a scoping review methodology was effective in terms of summarizing the research findings, identifying limitations in studies’ methodologies and findings and provided a more rigorous vision of the international state of the art.

Conclusions

This systematic scoping review provides a broad overview of the efficacy of PBL methodology in undergraduate medicine teaching from different countries and institutions. PBL is not a new teaching method given that it has already been 50 years since it was implemented in medicine courses. It is a method that shifts the leading role from teachers to students and is based on guided self-learning. If it is applied properly, the degree of satisfaction is high, especially for students. PBL is more effective than traditional methods (based mainly on lectures) at improving social and communication skills, problem-solving and self-learning skills, and has no worse results (and in many studies better results) in relation to academic performance. Despite that, its use is not universally widespread, probably because it requires greater human resources and continuous training for its implementation. In any case, more comparative and randomized studies and/or other systematic reviews and meta-analysis are required to determine which educational strategies could be most suitable for the training of future doctors.

Abbreviations

• Problem-based learning

Case-based learning

Team-based learning

References:

Dale E. Methods for analyzing the content of motion pictures. J Educ Sociol. 1932;6:244–50.

Google Scholar  

Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med. 1990;65(9 Suppl):S63–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199009000-00045 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bodagh N, Bloomfield J, Birch P, Ricketts W. Problem-based learning: a review. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2017;78:C167–70. https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2017.78.11.C167 .

- Branda LA. El abc del ABP: Lo esencial del aprendizaje basado en problemas. In: Fundación Dr. Esteve, Cuadernos de la fundación Dr. Antonio Esteve nº27: El aprendizaje basado en problemas en sus textos, pp.1–16. 2013. Barcelona.

Burgess A, Matar E, Roberts C, et al. Scaffolding medical student knowledge and skills: team-based learning (TBL) and case-based learning (CBL). BMC Med Educ. 2021;21:238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02638-3 .

Dolmans D, Michaelsen L, van Merriënboer J, van der Vleuten C. Should we choose between problem-based learning and team-based learning? No, combine the best of both worlds! Med Teach. 2015;37:354–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2014.948828 .

Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. In J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 .

Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123 .

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 .

Sokas RK, Diserens D, Johnston MA. Integrating occupational-health into the internal medicine clerkship using problem-based learning. Clin Res. 1990;38:A735.

Richards BF, Ober KP, Cariaga-Lo L, et al. Ratings of students’ performances in a third-year internal medicine clerkship: a comparison between problem-based and lecture-based curricula. Acad Med. 1996;71:187–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199602000-00028 .

Gresham CL, Philp JR. Problem-based learning in clinical medicine. Teach Learn Med. 1996;8:111–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401339609539776 .

Hill J, Rolfe IE, Pearson SA, Heathcote A. Do junior doctors feel they are prepared for hospital practice? A study of graduates from traditional and non-traditional medical schools. Med Educ. 1998;32:19–24. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1998.00152.x .

Blake RL, Parkison L. Faculty evaluation of the clinical performances of students in a problem-based learning curriculum. Teach Learn Med. 1998;10:69–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1002\_3 .

Hmelo CE. Problem-based learning: effects on the early acquisition of cognitive skill in medicine. J Learn Sc. 1998;7:173–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0702\_2 .

Finch PN. The effect of problem-based learning on the academic performance of students studying podiatric medicine in Ontario. Med Educ. 1999;33:411–7.

Casassus P, Hivon R, Gagnayre R, d’Ivernois JF. An initial experiment in haematology instruction using the problem-based learning method in third-year medical training in France. Hematol Cell Ther. 1999;41:137–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00282-999-0137-0 .

Purdy RA, Benstead TJ, Holmes DB, Kaufman DM. Using problem-based learning in neurosciences education for medical students. Can J Neurol Sci. 1999;26:211–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0317167100000287 .

Farrell TA, Albanese MA, Pomrehn PRJ. Problem-based learning in ophthalmology: a pilot program for curricular renewal. Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1223–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.117.9.1223 .

Curtis JA, Indyk D, Taylor B. Successful use of problem-based learning in a third-year pediatric clerkship. Ambul Pediatr. 2001;1:132–5. https://doi.org/10.1367/1539-4409(2001)001%3c0132:suopbl%3e2.0.co;2 .

Trevena LJ, Clarke RM. Self-directed learning in population health. a clinically relevant approach for medical students. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(01)00395-6 .

Astin J, Jenkins T, Moore L. Medical students’ perspective on the teaching of medical statistics in the undergraduate medical curriculum. Stat Med. 2002;21:1003–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1132 .

Whitfield CR, Manger EA, Zwicker J, Lehman EB. Differences between students in problem-based and lecture-based curricula measured by clerkship performance ratings at the beginning of the third year. Teach Learn Med. 2002;14:211–7. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328015TLM1404\_2 .

McParland M, Noble LM, Livingston G. The effectiveness of problem-based learning compared to traditional teaching in undergraduate psychiatry. Med Educ. 2004;38:859–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.01818.x .

Casey PM, Magrane D, Lesnick TG. Improved performance and student satisfaction after implementation of a problem-based preclinical obstetrics and gynecology curriculum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193:1874–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.07.061 .

Gurpinar E, Musal B, Aksakoglu G, Ucku R. Comparison of knowledge scores of medical students in problem-based learning and traditional curriculum on public health topics. BMC Med Educ. 2005;5:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-5-7 .

Tamblyn R, Abrahamowicz M, Dauphinee D, et al. Effect of a community oriented problem based learning curriculum on quality of primary care delivered by graduates: historical cohort comparison study. BMJ. 2005;331:1002. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.582546.7C .

Abu-Hijleh MF, Chakravarty M, Al-Shboul Q, Kassab S, Hamdy H. Integrating applied anatomy in surgical clerkship in a problem-based learning curriculum. Surg Radiol Anat. 2005;27:152–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-004-0293-4 .

Distlehorst LH, Dawson E, Robbs RS, Barrows HS. Problem-based learning outcomes: the glass half-full. Acad Med. 2005;80:294–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200503000-00020 .

Hoffman K, Hosokawa M, Blake R Jr, Headrick L, Johnson G. Problem-based learning outcomes: ten years of experience at the University of Missouri-Columbia school of medicine. Acad Med. 2006;81:617–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000232411.97399.c6 .

Kong J, Li X, Wang Y, Sun W, Zhang J. Effect of digital problem-based learning cases on student learning outcomes in ophthalmology courses. Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127:1211–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2009.110 .

Tsou KI, Cho SL, Lin CS, et al. Short-term outcomes of a near-full PBL curriculum in a new Taiwan medical school. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25:282–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70075-0 .

Wang J, Zhang W, Qin L, et al. Problem-based learning in regional anatomy education at Peking University. Anat Sci Educ. 2010;3:121–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.151 .

Abou-Elhamd KA, Rashad UM, Al-Sultan AI. Applying problem-based learning to otolaryngology teaching. J Laryngol Otol. 2011;125:117–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215110001702 .

Urrutia Aguilar ME, Hamui-Sutton A, Castaneda Figueiras S, van der Goes TI, Guevara-Guzman R. Impact of problem-based learning on the cognitive processes of medical students. Gac Med Mex. 2011;147:385–93.

Tian J-H, Yang K-H, Liu A-P. Problem-based learning in evidence-based medicine courses at Lanzhou University. Med Teach. 2012;34:341. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.531169 .

Hoover CR, Wong CC, Azzam A. From primary care to public health: using problem-based Learning and the ecological model to teach public health to first year medical students. J Community Health. 2012;37:647–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-011-9495-y .

Li J, Li QL, Li J, et al. Comparison of three problem-based learning conditions (real patients, digital and paper) with lecture-based learning in a dermatology course: a prospective randomized study from China. Med Teach. 2013;35:e963–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.719651 .

Ding X, Zhao L, Chu H, et al. Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning of preventive medicine education in China. Sci Rep. 2014;4:5126. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep05126 .

Meo SA. Undergraduate medical student’s perceptions on traditional and problem based curricula: pilot study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2014;64:775–9.

Khoshnevisasl P, Sadeghzadeh M, Mazloomzadeh S, Hashemi Feshareki R, Ahmadiafshar A. Comparison of problem-based learning with lecture-based learning. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2014;16: e5186. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.5186 .

Al-Drees AA, Khalil MS, Irshad M, Abdulghani HM. Students’ perception towards the problem based learning tutorial session in a system-based hybrid curriculum. Saudi Med J. 2015;36:341–8. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.3.10216 .

Al-Shaikh G, Al Mussaed EM, Altamimi TN, Elmorshedy H, Syed S, Habib F. Perception of medical students regarding problem based learning. Kuwait Med J. 2015;47:133–8.

Hande S, Mohammed CA, Komattil R. Acquisition of knowledge, generic skills and attitudes through problem-based learning: student perspectives in a hybrid curriculum. J Taibah Univ Medical Sci. 2015;10:21–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2014.01.008 .

González Mirasol E, Gómez García MT, Lobo Abascal P, Moreno Selva R, Fuentes Rozalén AM, González MG. Analysis of perception of training in graduates of the faculty of medicine at Universidad de Castilla-Mancha. Eval Program Plann. 2015;52:169–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.06.001 .

Yanamadala M, Kaprielian VS, O’Connor Grochowski C, Reed T, Heflin MT. A problem-based learning curriculum in geriatrics for medical students. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2018;39:122–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701960.2016.1152268 .

Balendran K, John L. Comparison of learning outcomes in problem based learning and lecture based learning in teaching forensic medicine. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2017;6:89–92. https://doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2017/22 .

Chang H-C, Wang N-Y, Ko W-R, Yu Y-T, Lin L-Y, Tsai H-F. The effectiveness of clinical problem-based learning model of medico-jurisprudence education on general law knowledge for obstetrics/gynecological interns. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;56:325–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2017.04.011 .

Eltony SA, El-Sayed NH, El-Araby SE-S, Kassab SE. Implementation and evaluation of a patient safety course in a problem-based learning program. Educ Heal. 2017;30:44–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.210512 .

Zhang S, Xu J, Wang H, Zhang D, Zhang Q, Zou L. Effects of problem-based learning in Chinese radiology education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97: e0069. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000010069 .

Hincapie Parra DA, Ramos Monobe A, Chrino-Barcelo V. Problem based learning as an active learning strategy and its impact on academic performance and critical thinking of medical students. Rev Complut Educ. 2018;29:665–81. https://doi.org/10.5209/RCED.53581 .

Ma Y, Lu X. The effectiveness of problem-based learning in pediatric medical education in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98: e14052. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000014052 .

Berger C, Brinkrolf P, Ertmer C, et al. Combination of problem-based learning with high-fidelity simulation in CPR training improves short and long-term CPR skills: a randomised single blinded trial. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1626-7 .

Aboonq M, Alquliti A, Abdulmonem I, Alpuq N, Jalali K, Arabi S. Students’ approaches to learning and perception of learning environment: a comparison between traditional and problem-based learning medical curricula. Indo Am J Pharm Sci. 2019;6:3610–9. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562660 .

Li X, Xie F, Li X, et al. Development, application, and evaluation of a problem-based learning method in clinical laboratory education. Clin Chim ACTA. 2020;510:681–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.08.037 .

Zhao W, He L, Deng W, Zhu J, Su A, Zhang Y. The effectiveness of the combined problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) teaching method in the clinical practical teaching of thyroid disease. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:381. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-020-02306 .

Liu C-X, Ouyang W-W, Wang X-W, Chen D, Jiang Z-L. Comparing hybrid problem-based and lecture learning (PBL plus LBL) with LBL pedagogy on clinical curriculum learning for medical students in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99:e19687. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000019687 .

Margolius SW, Papp KK, Altose MD, Wilson-Delfosse AL. Students perceive skills learned in pre-clerkship PBL valuable in core clinical rotations. Med Teach. 2020;42:902–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1762031 .

Schwartz RW, Donnelly MB, Nash PP, Young B. Developing students cognitive skills in a problem-based surgery clerkship. Acad Med. 1992;67:694–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199210000-00016 .

Mennin SP, Friedman M, Skipper B, Kalishman S, Snyder J. Performances on the NBME-I, NBME-II, and NBME-III by medical-students in the problem-based learning and conventional tracks at the university-of-new-mexico. Acad Med. 1993;68:616–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199308000-00012 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Comparing achievement on the medical council of Canada qualifying examination part I of students in conventional and problem-based learning curricula. Acad Med. 1998;73:1211–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199811000-00022 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Achievement of students in a conventional and Problem-Based Learning (PBL) curriculum. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 1999;4:245–60. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009829831978 .

Antepohl W, Herzig S. Problem-based learning versus lecture-based learning in a course of basic pharmacology: a controlled, randomized study. Med Educ. 1999;33:106–13. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00289.x .

Dyke P, Jamrozik K, Plant AJ. A randomized trial of a problem-based learning approach for teaching epidemiology. Acad Med. 2001;76:373–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200104000-00016 .

Brewer DW. Endocrine PBL in the year 2000. Adv Physiol Educ. 2001;25:249–55. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.4.249 .

Seneviratne RD, Samarasekera DD, Karunathilake IM, Ponnamperuma GG. Students’ perception of problem-based learning in the medical curriculum of the faculty of medicine, University of Colombo. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:379–81.

Alleyne T, Shirley A, Bennett C, et al. Problem-based compared with traditional methods at the faculty of medical sciences, University of the West Indies: a model study. Med Teach. 2002;24:273–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220125286 .

Norman GR, Wenghofer E, Klass D. Predicting doctor performance outcomes of curriculum interventions: problem-based learning and continuing competence. Med Educ. 2008;42:794–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03131.x .

Cohen-Schotanus J, Muijtjens AMM, Schoenrock-Adema J, Geertsma J, van der Vleuten CPM. Effects of conventional and problem-based learning on clinical and general competencies and career development. Med Educ. 2008;42:256–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02959.x .

Wenk M, Waurick R, Schotes D, et al. Simulation-based medical education is no better than problem-based discussions and induces misjudgment in self-assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14:159–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9098-2 .

Collard A, Gelaes S, Vanbelle S, et al. Reasoning versus knowledge retention and ascertainment throughout a problem-based learning curriculum. Med Educ. 2009;43:854–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03410.x .

Nouns Z, Schauber S, Witt C, Kingreen H, Schuettpelz-Brauns K. Development of knowledge in basic sciences: a comparison of two medical curricula. Med Educ. 2012;46:1206–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12047 .

Saloojee S, van Wyk J. The impact of a problem-based learning curriculum on the psychiatric knowledge and skills of final-year students at the Nelson R Mandela school of medicine. South African J Psychiatry. 2012;18:116.

Mughal AM, Shaikh SH. Assessment of collaborative problem solving skills in undergraduate medical students at Ziauddin college of medicine. Karachi Pakistan J Med Sci. 2018;34:185–9. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.341.13485 .

Hu X, Zhang H, Song Y, et al. Implementation of flipped classroom combined with problem-based learning: an approach to promote learning about hyperthyroidism in the endocrinology internship. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:290. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1714-8 .

Thompson KL, Gendreau JL, Strickling JE, Young HE. Cadaveric dissection in relation to problem-based learning case sequencing: a report of medical student musculoskeletal examination performances and self-confidence. Anat Sci Educ. 2019;12:619–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1891 .

Chang G, Cook D, Maguire T, Skakun E, Yakimets WW, Warnock GL. Problem-based learning: its role in undergraduate surgical education. Can J Surg. 1995;38:13–21.

Vernon DTA, Hosokawa MC. Faculty attitudes and opinions about problem-based learning. Acad Med. 1996;71:1233–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199611000-00020 .

Steadman RH, Coates WC, Huang YM, et al. Simulation-based training is superior to problem-based learning for the acquisition of critical assessment and management skills. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:151–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.CCM.0000190619.42013.94 .

Johnston JM, Schooling CM, Leung GM. A randomised-controlled trial of two educational modes for undergraduate evidence-based medicine learning in Asia. BMC Med Educ. 2009;9:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-9-63 .

Suleman W, Iqbal R, Alsultan A, Baig SM. Perception of 4(th) year medical students about problem based learning. Pakistan J Med Sci. 2010;26:871–4.

Blosser A, Jones B. Problem-based learning in a surgery clerkship. Med Teach. 1991;13:289–93. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599109089907 .

Usherwood T, Joesbury H, Hannay D. Student-directed problem-based learning in general-practice and public-health medicine. Med Educ. 1991;25:421–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1991.tb00090.x .

Bernstein P, Tipping J, Bercovitz K, Skinner HA. Shifting students and faculty to a PBL curriculum - attitudes changed and lessons learned. Acad Med. 1995;70:245–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199503000-00019 .

Kaufman DM, Mann KV. Comparing students’ attitudes in problem-based and conventional curricula. Acad Med. 1996;71:1096–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199610000-00018 .

Kalaian HA, Mullan PB. Exploratory factor analysis of students’ ratings of a problem-based learning curriculum. Acad Med. 1996;71:390–2. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199604000-00019 .

Vincelette J, Lalande R, Delorme P, Goudreau J, Lalonde V, Jean P. A pilot course as a model for implementing a PBL curriculum. Acad Med. 1997;72:698–701. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199708000-00015 .

Ghosh S, Dawka V. Combination of didactic lecture with problem-based learning sessions in physiology teaching in a developing medical college in Nepal. Adv Physiol Educ. 2000;24:8–12.

Walters MR. Problem-based learning within endocrine physiology lectures. Adv Physiol Educ. 2001;25:225–7. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2001.25.4.225 .

Leung GM, Lam TH, Hedley AJ. Problem-based public health learning - from the classroom to the community. Med Educ. 2001;35:1071–2.

Khoo HE, Chhem RK, Gwee MCE, Balasubramaniam P. Introduction of problem-based learning in a traditional medical curriculum in Singapore - students’ and tutors’ perspectives. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:371–4.

Villamor MCA. Problem-based learning (PBL) as an approach in the teaching of biochemistry of the endocrine system at the Angeles University College of Medicine. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2001;30:382–6.

Chang C-H, Yang C-Y, See L-C, Lui P-W. High satisfaction with problem-based learning for anesthesia. Chang Gung Med J. 2004;27:654–62.

McLean M. A comparison of students who chose a traditional or a problem-based learning curriculum after failing year 2 in the traditional curriculum: a unique case study at the Nelson R. Mandela school of medicine. Teach Learn Med. 2004;16:301–3. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328015tlm1603\_15 .

Lucas M, García Guasch R, Moret E, Llasera R, Melero A. Canet J [Problem-based learning in an undergraduate medical school course on anesthesiology, recovery care, and pain management]. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2006;53:419–25.

Burgun A, Darmoni S, Le Duff F, Weber J. Problem-based learning in medical informatics for undergraduate medical students: an experiment in two medical schools. Int J Med Inform. 2006;75:396–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.014 .

Gurpinar E, Senol Y, Aktekin MR. Evaluation of problem based learning by tutors and students in a medical faculty of Turkey. Kuwait Med J. 2009;41:123–7.

Elzubeir MA. Teaching of the renal system in an integrated, problem-based curriculum. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 2012;23:93–8.

Sulaiman N, Hamdy H. Problem-based learning: where are we now? Guide supplement 36.3–practical application. Med Teach. 2013;35:160–2. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.737965 .

Albarrak AI, Mohammed R, Abalhassan MF, Almutairi NK. Academic satisfaction among traditional and problem based learning medical students a comparative study. Saudi Med J. 2013;34:1179–88.

Nosair E, Mirghani Z, Mostafa RM. Measuring students’ perceptions of educational environment in the PBL program of Sharjah Medical College. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2015;2:71–9. https://doi.org/10.4137/JMECDECDECD.S29926 .

Tshitenge ST, Ndhlovu CE, Ogundipe R. Evaluation of problem-based learning curriculum implementation in a clerkship rotation of a newly established African medical training institution: lessons from the University of Botswana. Pan Afr Med J. 2017;27:13. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.27.13.10623 .

Yadav RL, Piryani RM, Deo GP, Shah DK, Yadav LK, Islam MN. Attitude and perception of undergraduate medical students toward the problem-based learning in Chitwan Medical College. Nepal Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:317–22. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S160814 .

Asad MR, Tadvi N, Amir KM, Afzal K, Irfan A, Hussain SA. Medical student’s feedback towards problem based learning and interactive lectures as a teaching and learning method in an outcome-based curriculum. Int J Med Res & Heal Sci. 2019;8:78–84. https://doi.org/10.33844/ijol.2019.60392 .

Mpalanyi M, Nalweyiso ID, Mubuuke AG. Perceptions of radiography students toward problem-based learning almost two decades after its introduction at Makerere University. Uganda J Med imaging Radiat Sci. 2020;51:639–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2020.06.009 .

Korkmaz NS, Ozcelik S. Evaluation of the opinions of the first, second and third term medical students about problem based learning sessions in Bezmialem Vakif University. Bezmialem Sci. 2020;8:144–9. https://doi.org/10.14235/bas.galenos.2019.3471 .

McGrew MC, Skipper B, Palley T, Kaufman A. Student and faculty perceptions of problem-based learning on a family medicine clerkship. Fam Med. 1999;31:171–6.

Kelly AM. A problem-based learning resource in emergency medicine for medical students. J Accid Emerg Med. 2000;17:320–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.17.5.320 .

Bui-Mansfield LT, Chew FS. Radiologists as clinical tutors in a problem-based medical school curriculum. Acad Radiol. 2001;8:657–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80693-1 .

Macallan DC, Kent A, Holmes SC, Farmer EA, McCrorie P. A model of clinical problem-based learning for clinical attachments in medicine. Med Educ. 2009;43:799–807. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03406.x .

Grisham JW, Martiniuk ALC, Negin J, Wright EP. Problem-based learning (PBL) and public health: an initial exploration of perceptions of PBL in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific J public Heal. 2015;27:NP2019-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539512436875 .

Khan IA, Al-Swailmi FK. Perceptions of faculty and students regarding Problem Based Learning: a mixed methods study. J Pak Med Assoc. 2015;65:1334–8.

Alduraywish AA, Mohager MO, Alenezi MJ, Nail AM, Aljafari AS. Evaluation of students’ experience with Problem-based Learning (PBL) applied at the College of Medicine, Al-Jouf University. Saudi Arabia J Pak Med Assoc. 2017;67:1870–3.

Yoo DM, Cho AR, Kim S. Satisfaction with and suitability of the problem-based learning program at the Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2019;16:20. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2019.16.20 .

Aldayel AA, Alali AO, Altuwaim AA, et al. Problem-based learning: medical students’ perception toward their educational environment at Al-Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:95–104. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S189062 .

DeLowerntal E. An evaluation of a module in problem-based learning. Int J Educ Dev. 1996;16:303–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-0593(96)00001-6 .

Tufts MA, Higgins-Opitz SB. What makes the learning of physiology in a PBL medical curriculum challenging? Student perceptions. Adv Physiol Educ. 2009;33:187–95. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90214.2008 .

Aboonq M. Perception of the faculty regarding problem-based learning as an educational approach in Northwestern Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2015;36:1329–35. https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2015.11.12263 .

Subramaniam RM, Scally P, Gibson R. Problem-based learning and medical student radiology teaching. Australas Radiol. 2004;48:335–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0004-8461.2004.01317.x .

Chang BJ. Problem-based learning in medical school: a student’s perspective. Ann Med Surg. 2016;12:88–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2016.11.011 .

Griffith CD, Blue AV, Mainous AG, DeSimone PA. Housestaff attitudes toward a problem-based clerkship. Med Teach. 1996;18:133–4. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421599609034147 .

Navarro HN, Zamora SJ. The opinion of teachers about tutorial problem based learning. Rev Med Chil. 2014;142:989–97. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872014000800006 .

Demiroren M, Turan S, Oztuna D. Medical students’ self-efficacy in problem-based learning and its relationship with self-regulated learning. Med Educ Online. 2016;21:30049. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.30049 .

Tousignant M, DesMarchais JE. Accuracy of student self-assessment ability compared to their own performance in a problem-based learning medical program: a correlation study. Adv Heal Sci Educ. 2002;7:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014516206120 .

Brynhildsen J, Dahle LO, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Attitudes among students and teachers on vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach. 2002;24:286–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590220134105 .

Desmarchais JE. A student-centered, problem-based curriculum - 5 years experience. Can Med Assoc J. 1993;148:1567–72.

Doig K, Werner E. The marriage of a traditional lecture-based curriculum and problem-based learning: are the offspring vigorous? Med Teach. 2000;22:173–8.

Kemahli S. Hematology education in a problem-based curriculum. Hematology. 2005;10(Suppl 1):161–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10245330512331390267 .

Grkovic I. Transition of the medical curriculum from classical to integrated: problem-based approach and Australian way of keeping academia in medicine. Croat Med J. 2005;46:16–20.

Bosch-Barrera J, Briceno Garcia HC, Capella D, et al. Teaching bioethics to students of medicine with Problem-Based Learning (PBL). Cuad Bioet. 2015;26:303–9.

Lin Y-C, Huang Y-S, Lai C-S, Yen J-H, Tsai W-C. Problem-based learning curriculum in medical education at Kaohsiung Medical University. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009;25:264–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70072-5 .

Salinas Sánchez AS, Hernández Millán I, Virseda Rodríguez JA, et al. Problem-based learning in urology training the faculty of medicine of the Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha model. Actas Urol Esp. 2005;29:8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0210-4806(05)73193-4 .

Amoako-Sakyi D, Amonoo-Kuofi H. Problem-based learning in resource-poor settings: lessons from a medical school in Ghana. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0501-4 .

Carrera LI, Tellez TE, D’Ottavio AE. Implementing a problem-based learning curriculum in an Argentinean medical school: implications for developing countries. Acad Med. 2003;78:798–801. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200308000-00010 .

Vernon DT, Blake RL. Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Acad Med. 1993;68:550–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199307000-00015 .

Shanley PF. Viewpoint: leaving the “empty glass” of problem-based learning behind: new assumptions and a revised model for case study in preclinical medical education. Acad Med. 2007;82:479–85. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31803eac4c .

Koh GC, Khoo HE, Wong ML, Koh D. The effects of problem-based learning during medical school on physician competency: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2008;178:34–41. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.070565 .

Awan ZA, Awan AA, Alshawwa L, Tekian A, Park YS. Assisting the integration of social media in problem-based learning sessions in the faculty of medicine at King Abdulaziz University. Med Teach. 2018;40:S37–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1465179 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Medical Education Cathedra, School of Medicine, University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Barcelona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs, Carles Blay & Ramon Pujol

Internal Medicine Service, Hospital de Olot i Comarcal de La Garrotxa, Olot, Girona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs

The Tissue Repair and Regeneration Laboratory (TR2Lab), University of Vic-Central University of Catalonia, Vic, Barcelona, Spain

Joan Carles Trullàs & Elisabet Sarri

Catalan Institute of Health (ICS) – Catalunya Central, Barcelona, Spain

Carles Blay

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JCT had the idea for the article, performed the literature search and data analysis and drafted the first version of the manuscript. CB, ES and RP contributed to the data analysis and suggested revisions to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics declarations

Availability of data and materials.

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable for a literature review.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Characteristics ofthe 124 included studies.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Trullàs, J.C., Blay, C., Sarri, E. et al. Effectiveness of problem-based learning methodology in undergraduate medical education: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ 22 , 104 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8

Download citation

Received : 03 October 2021

Accepted : 02 February 2022

Published : 17 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03154-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Systematic review

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Computer Vision
• Federated Learning
• Reinforcement Learning
• Natural Language Processing
• New Releases
• AI Dev Tools
• Advisory Board Members
• 🐝 Partnership and Promotion

AutoTRIZ’s detection results were compared with human experts’ analyses from textbooks categorized into complete match, half match, and no match scenarios. While human expert analysis carries subjectivity and bias, it serves as a benchmark for comparison. Results indicate that in 7 out of 10 cases, AutoTRIZ’s top 3 detections completely or partially matched the textbook analyses, demonstrating a degree of overlap between AutoTRIZ and human expert results.

In conclusion, The research introduces AutoTRIZ, an artificial ideation tool that employs LLMs to automate and enhance the TRIZ methodology. Through three LLM-based reasoning modules and a pre-defined function module interacting with a fixed knowledge base, AutoTRIZ generates interpretable solution reports from user-provided problem statements. The method’s effectiveness is demonstrated through quantitative experiments and case studies, suggesting potential extensions to other knowledge-based ideation methods beyond TRIZ.

Check out the  Paper .  All credit for this research goes to the researchers of this project. Also, don’t forget to follow us on  Twitter . Join our  Telegram Channel ,   Discord Channel , and  LinkedIn Gr oup .

If you like our work, you will love our  newsletter..

Don’t Forget to join our  39k+ ML SubReddit

Mohammad Asjad

Asjad is an intern consultant at Marktechpost. He is persuing B.Tech in mechanical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Asjad is a Machine learning and deep learning enthusiast who is always researching the applications of machine learning in healthcare.

• Mohammad Asjad https://www.marktechpost.com/author/mohammad_asjad/ Linear Attention Sequence Parallel (LASP): An Efficient Machine Learning Method Tailored to Linear Attention-Based Language Models
• Mohammad Asjad https://www.marktechpost.com/author/mohammad_asjad/ Researchers at Intel Labs Introduce LLaVA-Gemma: A Compact Vision-Language Model Leveraging the Gemma Large Language Model in Two Variants (Gemma-2B and Gemma-7B)
• Mohammad Asjad https://www.marktechpost.com/author/mohammad_asjad/ UniLLMRec: An End-to-End LLM-Centered Recommendation Framework to Execute Multi-Stage Recommendation Tasks Through Chain-of-Recommendations
• Mohammad Asjad https://www.marktechpost.com/author/mohammad_asjad/ Can Benign Data Undermine AI Safety? This Paper from Princeton University Explores the Paradox of Machine Learning Fine-Tuning

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Meet ipex-llm: a pytorch library for running llms on intel cpu and gpu, google ai researchers propose a noise-aware training method (nat) for layout-aware language models, effector: a python-based machine learning library dedicated to regional feature effects, aurora-m: a 15b parameter multilingual open-source ai model trained in english, finnish, hindi, japanese, vietnamese, and code, silofuse: transforming synthetic data generation in distributed systems with enhanced privacy, efficiency, and data utility, api strategies for effective database management and integration, aurora-m: a 15b parameter multilingual open-source ai model trained in english, finnish, hindi, japanese,..., silofuse: transforming synthetic data generation in distributed systems with enhanced privacy, efficiency, and data....

• AI Magazine
• Privacy & TC
• Cookie Policy

🐝 FREE AI Courses on RAG + Deployment of an Healthcare AI App + LangChain Colab Notebook all included

Thank You 🙌

Privacy Overview