An Empirical Investigation of the Underlying Cognitive Process in Complex Problem Solving: A Proposal of Problem-Solving Discussion Performance Evaluation Methods

Meetings are one of the most common collaboration formats for complex problem-solving (CPS). This research aims to formulate cognitive-oriented guidelines for productive synchronous CPS discussions. The study proposes a method to analyze the cognitive process and identifies the cognitive process associated with better CPS discussions. A conversation-analysis method was developed. Two indicators—source–outcome retrieval ratio and count of overlapped solution utterances—were proposed to evaluate the CPS discussion’s efficiency and effectiveness. Sixteen experimental CPS discussions were analyzed using this method. Correlation coefficients were applied to ascertain the cognitive features in CPS discussions with different levels of effectiveness and confirmed the applicability and reliability of the proposed methods. The results revealed that a good CPS discussion includes a regular progress summary, discussion conclusion, and high utilization of cognitive sources.

Keywords Complex Problem Solving, Problem Representation, Meeting Behaviors, Conversation-Analysis, Cognitive Process, Remote Collaboration, Online Meeting

Introduction

A complex problem is one that has no clearly defined goals or solutions. The amount of information to process and the inter-correlation of the components within a complex problem make complex problem-solving (CPS) challenging. Many social challenges can be identified as complex problems.

Meetings are a major part of the daily routine in many occupations. They are a commonly used collaboration format for solving complex problems, and their effectiveness influences society’s workplace productivity and well-being. Many researchers have attempted to improve meeting effectiveness by studying the action-wise facilitation of meetings. For instance, Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. (2013) found that the more evenly distributed procedural meeting behaviors—defined as verbal behaviors that structure group discussion to facilitate goal accomplishment—were across team members, the more effective the meeting was. In addition, Cooren et al. (2006) suggested that facilitation guidelines should lead the facilitator to adopt specific types of behaviors. As a result, group facilitation guidelines and supporting programs are often action-oriented. For example, past study suggested that managers should encourage open goal-oriented participation by employees to increase meeting satisfaction and effectiveness (Lehmann-Willenbrock et al., 2013). However, few recommendations were given on how to use procedural meeting behaviors to create better thinking processes. Similarly, when Standaert et al. (2016) provided results suggesting that managers use face-to-face or telepresence but not audio or video call for effective idea clarification, there was little mention of how meeting modes can facilitate the conveyance of contents (Standaert et al., 2016). There is a gap between behavioral instructions and their application to facilitate effective problem-solving discussions.

Another issue with problem-solving meetings guidelines is the lack of an adequate research foundation. As a meeting is a common collaboration format, many existing common practices were concluded from individual instances rather than scientific observations. For example, “an effective problem-solving meeting should have a maximum of eight people” (Frisch, 2006; Jay, 1976). The actual intention of this instruction is keeping meetings at a manageable size so that the problem can be solved by the most suitable personnel, with less distraction. To justify the generally accepted practices from a cognitive-oriented perspective: the effectiveness corresponds to the problem solvers’ knowledge and the state of their cognitive skills, whereas both novices and experts can solve a given problem effectively, even though the objective effectiveness of their solutions may largely differ (Duris, 2018). Guidelines that are summarized from one’s experience may be easily understandable to the general public; however, they can also mislead if the actual cognitive implications are not considered. Actually, in almost 50% of cases, ineffectiveness in meetings is caused by cognition-related issues, such as information loss, information distortion, sub-optimal decision making, and meeting mismanagement (Monge et al., 1989; Mosvick & Nelson, 1987). Therefore, scientifically proven and cognitive-oriented facilitation guidelines are necessary to fill the aforementioned gaps.