problem space hypothesis

Research: Establishing the Problem Space

• Establishing the Problem Space
• Finding Qualitative Research
• Finding Quantitative Research
• What is Emperical Research?
• What is Seminal Research?

What is the Problem Space?

A gap is a space between two objects or a break in continuity.  A research gap is a break or missing part of the existing research when you define the research gap or the problem space you are defining what is known and what is missing in the existing research.  The "problem space" of a study is a definition of the topic, the problem statements or research gaps mentioned by other researchers, and the steps other researchers took to answer the research question. The problem space is a way to identify and establish boundaries for your research, it helps to guide what should be included or excluded from your research.  The problem statement expresses how your study will answer or fill the research gap.

The problem space is thus comprised of identifying what is known about a topic, understanding how it has come to be known (the theories, designs, methods, instruments), and then figuring out what is not yet known (or perspective not explored) .   Problem spaces are built by taking note of the limitations and recommendations discussed in the empirical research articles you gather as you build your literature review.

• Don't know where to start? 6 Tips on identifying research gaps
• What are Gap Statements? From the Middlebury University 'Write Like a Scientist" guide.
• Farooq, R. (2017). A framework for identifying research gap in social sciences: Evidence from the past. IUP Journal of Management Research, 16(4), 66-75. Retrieved from https://uscupstate.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/
• Robinson KA, Akinyede O, Dutta T, et al. Framework for Determining Research Gaps During Systematic Review: Evaluation [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Feb. Introduction. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm

Examples From Empirical Articles

When looking to find discussions of research that has yet to be done (AKA research gap) in existing articles there are a few keywords to look out for such as limitations identified, further research needed, needs clarification, not been reported (studied, reported, or elucidated), suggestions for further research, questions remains, poorly understood, and/or lack of studies

Below are two examples of types of passages to look for.

Example of a Limitations Section

From the article:

Spanhove, V., De Wandele, I., Kjær, B. H., Malfait, F., Vanderstukken, F., & Cools, A. (2020). The effect of five isometric exercises on glenohumeral translations in healthy subjects and patients with the hypermobility type of the ehlers-danlos syndrome (heds) or hypermobility spectrum disorder (hsd) with multidirectional shoulder instability: an observational study.  Physiotherapy ,  107 , 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2019.06.010

From this passage, an argument could be made for performing a similar study, but with 3D analysis.

Example of a Recommendation for Further Research

Some articles will go beyond discussing their limitations and describe further research that should be done. 

For example, this article:

Carey, J., Pathak, A., & Johnson, S. C. (2020). Use, Perceptions, and Awareness of LibGuides among Undergraduate and Graduate Health Professions Students.  Evidence Based Library and Information Practice ,  15 (3), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.18438/eblip29653

Suggests several different avenues of further research:

How to Use Review Articles

Review articles can help formulate a gap, or at least point out a direction to look for one. Since they provide an overview of the published literature, they can give you a head start on what kinds of research are lacking.

How to Locate Review Articles: Systematic Reviews, Literature Reviews, and Meta-Analyses

• handwashing or hand washing or hand hygiene or hand sanitation
• systematic review or meta-analysis or literature review or scoping review
• Adjust dates to be within 2 years. 
• For instance the above search was used to locate this article:

Seo, H.-J., Sohng, K.-Y., Chang, S. O., Chaung, S. K., Won, J. S., & Choi, M.-J. (2019). Interventions to improve hand hygiene compliance in emergency departments: a systematic review. The Journal of Hospital Infection , 102(4), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2019.03.013

• (hand antisepsis or handwash* or hand wash* or hand disinfection or hand hygiene or surgical scrub*)
• With terms that should be included when searching on this topic.
• "Further well-designed controlled studies are necessary to examine the true effects and identify which intervention modalities are more effective than others for HHC improvement in EDs."
• Reviewing the articles this article studied would then provide support for this gap.

Pursuing a health care topic? Search Cochrane Reviews or Joanna Biggs EBP as well as the more general databases.

Example of a Review Article With a Discussion of Areas Needing Research

Example of a Review Article

Review articles can clarify where a lack of research exists. To then establish the problem space fully, you will need to track down the articles cited in the review.

For instance, consider the following passage from this review article:

Martin, A. (2019). An acquired or heritable connective tissue disorder? A review of hypermobile Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. European Journal of Medical Genetics, 62(7), 103672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2019.103672

This is indicating a need for longitudinal studies for this condition to better understand the relationship between muscle strength and muscle waste. Further examining the cited articles would establish this avenue for a study.

Problem Formulation

• Trochim, William M.K. “Problem Formulation.” Research Methods Knowledge Base, Conjoint.ly, https://conjointly.com/kb/problem-formulation/.
• << Previous: Home
• Next: Qualitative vs Quanitative >>
• Last Updated: Apr 17, 2023 9:51 AM
• URL: https://uscupstate.libguides.com/Advanced_Research

• All Activity
• Ask a Question

What is the Problem Space Theory?

• problemsolving

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to answer this question..

The Problem Space Theory in which people try and solve problems by looking at the problem space.

The problem space consists of multiple states being:

• Initial or Current State
• End or Goal State
• All Possible States in between

Actions that we take in order to move into another state are known as Operators. As humans, we take short-cuts known as heuristics in order to solve problems that we do not have any knowledge in. Heuristics also operates within the human processing system which can be applied to solve problems in areas that are well defined.  A common heuristic is "means-end analysis" where an operator is used to shorten the length between the Initial and Goal States. Sub-goals can also be defined in order to make the overall problem easier to execute which a "Divide and Conquer" method could be applied to reach the Goal State faster.

Related questions

• programming
• All categories
• Programming (38)
• Data Science (130)
• Machine Learning (77)
• Deep Learning (9)
• Artificial Intelligence (3)
• Web Development (8)
• Mobile Development (0)
• Cloud Computing (10)
• Human Computer Interaction (92)
• Python Interview Questions (18)
• Data Science Interview Questions (19)
• Machine Learning Interview Questions (17)
• Deep Learning Interview Questions (2)

423 questions

363 answers

97 comments

• Send feedback
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Good design is actually a lot harder to notice than poor design, in part because good designs fit our needs so well that the design is invisible, serving us without drawing attention to itself. Bad design, on the other hand, screams out its inadequacies, making itself very noticeable. —Don Norman, The Design of Everyday Things

Design Thinking

Design Thinking is a customer-centric development process that creates desirable products that are profitable and sustainable over their lifecycle.

It goes beyond the traditional focus on the features and functions of a proposed product. Instead, it emphasizes understanding the problem to be solved, the context in which the solution will be used, and the evolution of that solution.

Traditional waterfall approaches to product development are sequential: requirements are defined, and solutions are designed, built, and delivered to the market. The focus tends to be on the most apparent problems. Often, success is determined by implementing a solution that meets the requirements instead of the user’s needs. This results in products and services with unusable or ignored features that frustrate users and fail to meet the enterprise’s business goals .

Design thinking (Figure 1) represents a profoundly different approach to product and Solution development, in which divergent and convergent techniques are applied to understand a problem, design a solution, and deliver that solution to the market.

Design thinking also inspires new ways to measure the success of our efforts:

• Desirable – Do customers and end-users want the solution?
• Feasible – Can we deliver the right solution through a combination of build, buy, partner, or acquire activities?
• Viable – Is the way we build and offer the solution creating more value than cost? For example, in a for-profit enterprise, are we profitable?
• Sustainable – Are we proactively managing our solution to account for its expected product-market lifecycle?

Successive applications of design thinking advance the solution over its natural market lifecycle, as shown in Figure 2.

Understanding the Problem and Solution Space

In Figure 1, the core design thinking processes appear as a ‘double diamond.’ This represents the focus on thoroughly exploring the problem space before creating solutions. Each diamond focuses on divergent thinking (understanding and exploring options) followed by convergent thinking (evaluating options and making choices).

The activities associated with exploring the problem are elaborated as follows:

• Discover – The discover phase seeks to understand the problem by engaging in market and user research to identify unmet needs. This research creates fresh perspectives that drive innovation. Unlike research that confirms or refutes a hypothesis, the inquiries associated with the discovery phase occur without preconceived notions about how users should work. Instead, it focuses on how users work . An essential research technique is Gemba, also known as ‘going to the place where the work is done.’
• Define – The define phase focuses on the information gathered during the discover phase to generate insights into specific problems and unmet needs. These create opportunities for the business and new product development. Results of this phase typically include personas and empathy maps (described below) that focus the product team on the solutions the Customer would view as desirable. Epics and Features capture the perceived changes needed for existing products and solutions.

With a clear understanding of the target market and its problems, the focus can move toward designing a solution, the second diamond of design thinking. These are:

• Develop – The develop phase uses journey mapping, story mapping, and prototyping to design potential solutions to problems quickly and cost-effectively. Each of these techniques is discussed more thoroughly later in this article. The develop phase also embraces SAFe Principle #3 – Assume variability; preserve options. Design thinking techniques preserve options responsibly.
• Deliver – The deliver phase produces artifacts suitable for creating the solution and varies based on context. These artifacts often start as prototypes expressed as validated features in the ART Backlog for continuous delivery.

Using Personas to Focus Design

Creating solutions for a direct customer—bespoke solutions—offer designers the advantage of speaking directly and frequently with a few target users, permitting them to participate in the design, PI Planning , System Demos , and other SAFe events. In some organizations, Customers are considered part of the team, so creating a Persona to represent them isn’t typically needed but may be helpful when the organization is highly distributed.

In contrast, in an indirect customer market, which is common in B2C solutions, product teams need a way to maintain a connection with their target customers. So, they develop ‘personas,’ fictional consumers and users derived from user research. [2] They depict the people who might similarly use a product or solution, providing insights into how real users would engage with a solution. User personas also support market segmentation strategy by offering a concrete design tool to reinforce that products and solutions are created for people. Personas drive product development and several SAFe practices, as shown in Figure 3.

In addition to user personas, buyer personas extend design thinking to include the individuals and organizations that authorize purchasing decisions. They help ensure that the design encompasses the whole product purchase experience, including after-sales service, support, and operations.

Establishing Empathy to Foster Customer-Centric Design

Customer-centric enterprises use empathy throughout the design process. Empathetic design dismisses preconceived ideas and uses the Customer’s perspective to inform solution development.

Empathy maps [1] are a design thinking tool that promotes customer identification by helping teams develop a deep, shared understanding of others (Figure 4). They enable teams to imagine what a specific persona is thinking, feeling, hearing, and seeing as they use the product. The greater the degree of empathy a team has for its customers, the more likely it will be able to design desirable solutions.

Designing the User Experience through Journey Maps

A customer journey map illustrates the user experience in an Operational Value Stream that provides products and services. Figure 5 shows how these journey maps are powerful design thinking tools. They allow teams to identify ways the specific deliverables for one or more Development Value Streams can be improved to create a better end-to-end user experience.

Delivering Benefits Through Features

While a journey map captures the high-level experience of the Customer in the operational value stream, product features manage the specific deliverables that fulfill a stakeholder’s need. Features are commonly described through a features and benefits (FAB) matrix , using short phrases that provide context and a benefit hypothesis. Design thinking, however, promotes switching the order of the FAB to a benefit-feature matrix . In this case, the intended customer benefits are identified first, and then the teams determine what features might satisfy their needs. This approach helps Agile Teams explore better and faster ways to deliver the desired benefits (Figure 6).

Designing User Workflows or Journeys through Story Maps

Features that capture a workflow or user journey present a unique challenge to Agile teams. Because the backlog is a flat, one-dimensional list, it does not show the relationship between the user’s goals, workflow activities, and the stories in the backlog. Story mapping is a brainstorming technique that can enable teams to design a solution focused on the Customer. Not all features will require story mapping. However, they are particularly useful for developing new end-user functionality for a workflow or customer journey.

Why Story Maps?

Story maps help teams ideate, plan, and group activities in a workflow or user journey . They allow teams to address the most critical steps before improving existing steps or adding new functionality. Story maps are an important design thinking tool that enables Customer Centricity because they focus on delighting a user instead of merely implementing stories ordered by their value. Another benefit is avoiding releasing a feature (or solution) that is not usable because its functionality depends on stories that are lower in priority and further down the backlog.

Figure 7 illustrates how a feature with a workflow is captured in a story map [3], organizing the sequence of stories according to the activities (or steps) a user needs to accomplish their goal. The first set of stories is essential for the initial release, while the next set represents improvements for future releases.

How to Create a Story Map

The following steps describe the process of creating a story map (Figure 7) for a new potential Feature that requires a workflow.

• Frame the purpose : Identify the goal or customer problems the solution will solve and the intended users of the solution.
• Map the whole story : Define the starting conditions for the user to accomplish their goals. Focus on describing the whole story and user activities and tasks, creating the backbone of the story map.
• Brainstorm : Fill in the body of the story map by breaking down the larger user tasks into smaller subtasks and user interface details. Consider many possibilities without concern if the stories are in or out of scope. Affinity group the stories needed to complete the task under each activity.
• Identify the stories essential for the initial release : The team identifies which stories can be released (in the next iteration or two) that will achieve a meaningful user outcome.
• Identify stories considered as improvements in future releases : Stories that are not selected for the initial release will be added to the backlog as potential candidates for future releases.

Increasing Design Feedback Through Prototypes

A prototype is a basic functional model of a feature or product, usually built for demonstration purposes or as part of the development process. It helps the team clarify their understanding of the problem and reduces risk in designing and developing the solution before making further investments. Prototypes provide many benefits:

• Fast feedback. By definition, a prototype is cheaper and faster to produce than a complete solution. This enables faster feedback from users and customers, increased understanding of solution requirements, and greater confidence in the final designs.
• Risk reduction. Prototypes can reduce technical risk by enabling Agile teams to focus initial efforts on the aspects of the solution associated with the highest risk.
• Intellectual property/patent filing. Prototypes can be used to satisfy strategic requirements for managing intellectual property as early as possible in the development process.
• Models for requirements. Prototypes can provide more clarity in the requirements of the desired feature or solution than pages of documentation.

There are many kinds of prototypes, each optimized to provide different types of insights:

• Paper prototypes are typically hand-drawn sketches of the intended solution. They can be automated to illustrate workflows or validate user story maps.
• Mid-Fi prototypes are visually-complete representations of software-centric solutions but are not typically functionally integrated.
• Hi-Fi prototypes are visually-complete and interactive models which users and customers can directly explore.
• Hardware prototypes provide critical feedback on form factors, sizes, and operational requirements. For example, when exploring form factors to see how a new tablet might fit into existing backpacks, briefcases, and cars, one Silicon Valley company cut many plastic models from a single sheet of plastic. Later in this design process, this same team found they needed to redesign the power supply so that it would not unduly interfere with the WIFI signal.

Last updated: 13 February 2023

Privacy Overview

Means-Ends Planning: An Example Soar System

Cite this chapter.

• Aladin Akyürek 3  

Part of the book series: Studies in Cognitive Systems ((COGS,volume 10))

160 Accesses

3 Citations

Although Soar is intended to cover the full range of weak problem-solving methods-often hypothesized in cognitive science as basic for all intelligent agents, earlier attempts to add means-ends analysis to Soar’s repertoire of methods have not been particularly successful or convincing. Considering its psychological significance, stipulated by Newell and Simon (1972), it seems essential that Soar, when taken as a general cognitive architecture, should allow the means-ends analysis to arise naturally from its own structure. This paper presents a planner program that interleaves a difference reduction process with Soar’s default mechanism for operator subgoaling that it modifies in order to map meansends analysis onto Soar. The scheme advanced is shown to produce “macro-operators” of a novel kind, called macrochunks , which may have important implications for explaining routine behavior. The approach taken and the problems that had to be dealt with in implementing this planner are treated in detail. Also, SoarL —a language used for state representations- is reviewed with respect to the frame problem.

• Goal Condition
• Problem Space
• Frame Problem
• Knowledge Compilation

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Akyürek, A. (1992). On a computational model of human planning. In J. A. Michon & A. Akyürek (Eds.), Soar: A cognitive architecture in perspective (pp. 81–108). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Anderson, J. R. (1986). Knowledge compilation: The general learning mechanism. In R. S. Michalski. J. G. Carbonell. & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.). Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (Vol. II. pp. 289–310). Los Altos. CA: Morgan Kaufma

Google Scholar  

Atwood, M. E. & Polson. P. G. (1976). A process model for water jug problems. Cognitive Psychology , 8 ,191–216.

Article   Google Scholar  

Carbonell, J. G. (1983). Learning by analogy: Formulating and generalizing plans from past experience, In R. S. Michalski. J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.). Machine learning: An artificial intelligence approach (pp. 137–161). Los Altos. CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Dawson, C., & Siklóssy, L. (1977). The role of preprocessing in problem solving systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 465–471). San Mateo. CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

DeJong, G., & Mooney. R. (1986). Explanation-based learning: An alternative view. Machine Learning , 1 , 145–176.

Ernst, G. W. (1969). Sufficient conditions for the success of GPS. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery , 16 , 517–533.

Fikes, R. E., Hart, P.E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1972). Learning and executing generalized robot plans. Artificial Intelligence , 3 , 251–288.

Fikes, R. E., & Nilsson, N. J. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence , 2 , 189–208.

Hayes. P. J. (1973). The frame problem and related problems in artificial intelligence. In A. Elithorn & D. Jones (Eds.). Artificial and human thinking (pp. 45–59). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Jeffries, R., Polson, P. G., & Razran, L. (1977). A process model for missionaries-cannibals and other river-crossing problems. Cognitive Psychology , 9 ,412–440.

Korf, R. E. (1985). Learning to solve problems by searching for macro-operators . Boston, MA: Pitman.

Knoblock, C. A. (1989). Learning hierarchies of abstraction spaces. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Machine Learning (pp. 241–245). San Mateo. CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Laird, J. E. (1984). Universal subgoaling (Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-84-129). Pittsburgh. PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Computer Science. [Also available as part of Laird, I., Rosenbloom, P., & Newell, A. (1986). Universal subgoaling and chunking: The automatic generation and learning of goal hierarchies (pp. 1–131). Boston. MA: Kluwer.)

Laird, J. E., Congdon, C. B., Altmann, E., & Swedlow, K. (1990). Soar user’s manual: Version 5.2 (Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-90-179). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science.

Laird, J., & Newell, A. (1983). A universal weak method ([ech. Rep. CMU-CS-83-141). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Computer Science.

Laird, J. E., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1990). Integrating execution, planning, and learning in Soar for external environments. In Proceedings of the Eighth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1022–1029). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Laird, J. E., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Newell, A. (1984). Towards chunking as a general learning mechanism. In Proceedings of the Fourth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 188–192). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Laird, J. E., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Newell, A. (1986). Chunking in Soar: The anatomy of a general learning mechanism. Machine Learning , 1 , 11–46.

Laird, J., Swedlow, K., Altmann, E., Congdon, C. B., & Wiesmeyer, M. (1989). Soar user’s manual: Version 4.5 . Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science.

McDermott, D. (1987). AI, logic, and the frame problem. In F. M. Brown (Ed.), The frame problem in artificial intelligence (pp. 105–118). Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

McDermott, D. (1978). Planning and acting. Cognitive Science , 2 , 71–109).

Minton, S. (1988). Learning search control knowledge: An explanation-based approach . Boston, MA: Kluwer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Minton, S., Knoblock, C. A., Kuokka, D. R., Gil, Y., Joseph, R. L., & Carbonell, J. G. (1989). PRODIGY 2.0: The manual and tutorial (Tech. Rep. CMU-CS-89-146). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University, School of Computer Science.

Mitchell, T. M., Keller, R. M., & Kedar-Cabelli, S. T. (1986). Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view. Machine Learning , 1 ,47–80.

Newell, A. (1980). Reasoning, problem solving, and decision processes: The problem space as a fundamental category. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. 8, pp. 693–718). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Newell, A. (1992). Unified theories of cognition and the role of Soar. In J. A. Michon & A. Akyürek (Eds.), Soar: A cognitive architecture in perspective (pp. 25–79). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Newell, A., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Laird, J. E. (1989). Symbolic architectures for cognition. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 93–131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1962). The processes of creative thinking. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 63–119). New York: Atherton Press.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1963). GPS, a program that simulates human thought. In E. A. Feigenbaum & J. Feldman (Eds.), Computers and thought (pp. 279–293). New York: McGraw-Hill. (Original work published 1961)

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving . Englewood Cliffs. NJ: PrenticeHall.

Newell, A., Yost, G., Laird, J. E., Rosenbloom, P. S., & Altmann, E. (1990). Formulating the problem space computational model . Paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Symposium. School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.

Nilsson, N. J.(1980). Principles of artificial intelligence . Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Russell, S. J. (1989). Execution architectures and compilation. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 15–20). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Sacerdoti, E. D. (1974). Planning in a hierarchy of abstraction spaces. Artificial Intelligence , 5 ,115–135.

Sandewall, E. J. (1969). A planning problem solver based on look-ahead in stochastic game trees. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery , 16 , 364–382.

Schubert, L. (1990). Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In H. E. Kyburg, R. P. Loui, & G. N. Carlson (Eds.), Knowledge representation and defeasible reasoning (pp. 23–67). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Sussman, G. J. (1975). A computer model of skill acquisition . New York: American Elsevier.

Tambe, M., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1990). The problem of expensive chunks and its solution by restricting expressiveness. Machine Learning , 5 ,299–348.

Tenenberg, J. D. (1988). Abstraction in planning (Tech. Rep. No. 250). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester. Computer Science Department.

Unruh, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1989). Abstraction in problem solving and learning. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 681–687). San Mateo. CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Unruh, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1990). Two new weak method increments for abstraction . Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wilkins, D. E. (1988). Practical planning: Extending the classical AI planning paradigm . San Mateo,CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Woods, W. A. (1975). What’s in a link: Foundations for semantic networks. In D. G. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.). Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 35–82). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Aladin Akyürek

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

John A. Michon  & Aladin Akyürek  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Akyürek, A. (1992). Means-Ends Planning: An Example Soar System. In: Michon, J.A., Akyürek, A. (eds) Soar: A Cognitive Architecture in Perspective. Studies in Cognitive Systems, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2426-3_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2426-3_5

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-010-5070-8

Online ISBN : 978-94-011-2426-3

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• IGNOU Answers

Define Problem space hypothesis

In today's rapidly changing and interconnected world, businesses, organizations, and individuals face a multitude of complex challenges. To effectively navigate these challenges, it is crucial to understand and define the problem space accurately. 

The problem space hypothesis provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and addressing complex problems systematically. This hypothesis suggests that a clear understanding of the problem space can lead to more effective problem-solving and innovative solutions.

Define Problem space hypothesis- The problem space refers to the entire context and environment within which a problem exists. It encompasses all the factors and variables that influence the problem and its potential solutions. This includes internal and external elements such as stakeholders, constraints, resources, market dynamics, technological factors, social factors, and more. 

Cultural Blocks To Problem Solving Definition Of Functional Fixedness Definition Symptoms And Causes Of Aphasia

The problem space hypothesis posits that by comprehensively understanding this context, one can gain insights into the problem's root causes and identify potential avenues for resolution.

Significance of the Problem Space Hypothesis: 

The problem space hypothesis is essential because it helps in avoiding superficial or narrow problem definitions. By thoroughly exploring the problem space, decision-makers can avoid focusing solely on symptoms or surface-level issues. Instead, they can dig deeper, uncover underlying complexities, and develop a more holistic understanding of the problem at hand. 

This broader perspective enhances the chances of finding innovative and sustainable solutions.

Key Elements of the Problem Space Hypothesis:

1. Problem Context Analysis: This involves analyzing the internal and external factors influencing the problem. It includes identifying stakeholders, understanding their motivations and interests, and assessing the larger social, economic, and environmental context in which the problem exists.

2. Systems Thinking: The problem space hypothesis emphasizes the importance of adopting a systems thinking approach. This means recognizing that problems are interconnected and understanding the relationships and feedback loops between various elements within the problem space. It helps in identifying leverage points and potential unintended consequences of interventions.

3. Problem Framing: Properly framing the problem is crucial for effective problem-solving. The problem space hypothesis encourages defining the problem in terms of outcomes and objectives rather than predefined solutions. This allows for a more flexible and creative exploration of potential alternatives.

4. Iterative Exploration: The problem space is not static but evolves over time. The hypothesis suggests an iterative approach to problem exploration, where new insights are continually gained, and assumptions are tested. This approach enables adaptive problem-solving, accommodating new information and changing circumstances.

Application of the Problem Space Hypothesis

The problem space hypothesis is applicable across various domains and scales. In business, it can help organizations identify market opportunities, understand customer needs, and design innovative products or services. In public policy, it can aid in crafting comprehensive and effective policies by considering the broader social, economic, and environmental dimensions of a problem. In technology development, it can guide research and development efforts by uncovering hidden challenges and improving the chances of success.

Challenges and Limitations: While the problem space hypothesis offers valuable insights, it is not without challenges. One of the key challenges is the complexity and ambiguity inherent in many problem spaces. It requires extensive data gathering, analysis, and expertise to fully grasp the nuances and interdependencies within the problem space. Additionally, the hypothesis relies on the availability of accurate and up-to-date information, which can be a limitation in certain contexts.

Problem Solving Strategies

Problem-solving is an essential skill in both personal and professional settings. It involves analyzing a situation, identifying obstacles or challenges, and finding appropriate solutions. However, not all problems are created equal, and each may require a tailored approach. In this article, we will explore various problem-solving strategies that can help individuals and organizations tackle complex issues effectively. These strategies encompass different techniques, methods, and frameworks that facilitate critical thinking, creativity, and innovation.

1. Define and Understand the Problem: The first step in problem-solving is to clearly define and understand the problem. This involves gathering relevant information, identifying the root causes, and analyzing the various factors contributing to the problem. It is crucial to delve beyond the surface-level symptoms and uncover the underlying complexities.

2. Divide and Conquer: For complex problems, it can be beneficial to break them down into smaller, more manageable parts. This strategy, known as "divide and conquer," involves separating the problem into sub-problems and addressing them individually. By tackling smaller components, it becomes easier to identify specific issues and develop targeted solutions. Once the sub-problems are solved, the solutions can be integrated to address the larger problem.

3. Brainstorming and Idea Generation: Brainstorming is a widely used technique for generating a wide range of ideas and potential solutions. It involves encouraging free thinking, suspending judgment, and promoting creativity. Group brainstorming sessions can leverage the collective intelligence and diverse perspectives of team members, fostering innovative thinking and uncovering unique solutions. Additionally, individual brainstorming allows for independent ideation, avoiding groupthink and encouraging individual creativity.

4. Root Cause Analysis: Identifying the root causes of a problem is critical for effective problem-solving. Root cause analysis involves systematically investigating the underlying reasons that contribute to the problem's existence. 

Define Problem space hypothesis- Tools such as the "5 Whys" technique can help in progressively digging deeper into the causes behind a problem. By addressing the root causes, rather than merely treating symptoms, more sustainable and long-lasting solutions can be developed.

5. Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills: Developing strong critical thinking and analytical skills is essential for effective problem-solving. This includes the ability to evaluate information objectively, identify biases or assumptions, and draw logical conclusions. Critical thinking also involves considering alternative perspectives, weighing evidence, and making informed decisions based on available data. Cultivating these skills enables individuals to approach problems with a rational and systematic mindset.

6. Design Thinking: Design thinking is a human-centered problem-solving approach that emphasizes empathy, creativity, and iteration. It involves understanding the needs and perspectives of the end-users, ideating potential solutions, prototyping and testing those solutions, and iterating based on feedback. Design thinking encourages a holistic view of the problem space, fostering innovative and user-centric solutions.

7. Decision-Making Strategies: Problem-solving often involves making decisions in the face of uncertainty. Several decision-making strategies can aid in this process. These include the rational decision-making model, which involves a systematic evaluation of alternatives based on criteria and preferences, and intuitive decision-making, which relies on instinct, experience, and pattern recognition. Additionally, techniques such as the decision matrix and SWOT analysis can help in evaluating options and selecting the most suitable course of action.

8. Collaboration and Teamwork: Many complex problems require collaborative efforts. Teamwork enables diverse perspectives, expertise, and skills to come together, leading to more comprehensive problem analysis and innovative solutions. 

Define Problem space hypothesis- Effective collaboration involves open communication, active listening, and respect for different viewpoints. Leveraging the collective intelligence of a team can foster synergy and improve the quality of problem-solving outcomes.

0 comments:

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Popular Posts

• Ice Candy Man Summary, Themes and Characters Bapsi Sidhwa: Ice-Candy-Man Ice Candy Man Summary The novel Cracking India (first published as Ice-Candy-Man in 1980), by Bapsi Sidh...

• Why does Plato want the artists to be kept away from the ideal state? Discuss Why does Plato want the artists to be kept away from the ideal state? Discuss Ans . Plato, born around 427 BC in Athens, Greece, was an i...

Watch Video Now !

Labels Cloud

• BA Assignment 2022-23 9
• Biography 11
• Book Summary 13
• Competitive Exams 9
• English Literature 729
• Govt Exams 4
• IGNOU Answers 1491
• IGNOU ASSIGNMENT 453
• ignou assignment 2022-23 288
• NMIMS Assignment 11