A ROLE-ORIENTED APPROACH TO PROBLEM-SOLVING

Updated 2009
A ROLE-ORIENTED APPROACH TO PROBLEM-SOLVING
CHARLES H. BURNETTE
Originally published in Olsen S.A. 1982: Group Planning and Problem Solving Methods in
Engineering Management, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York as Chapter 10.
The Role-Oriented Approach to Problem-Solving is a technique for organizing and managing
both problem-solving activity and the information involved. The technique may be applied by
individuals or groups, formally through institutionalized systems or informally as a reference for
thought and communication. It provides a framework to facilitate problem solving,
communication, and behavior. Open-ended techniques of idea generation such as brain storming,
free association, and analogous thinking are given an operational context through which to
assimilate the information they produce.
As problems become more complex and difficult to solve, problem solving requires knowledge
and ideas from various disciplines and people of diverse backgrounds. A way to structure
collaboration to promote creative solutions to “wicked” problems is of increasing importance.
Such a process should marshal a comprehensive range of perspectives, information, and potential
actions relative to a problem, encourage the free flow of ideas, and structure the efforts of several
people into a cohesive, cooperative, and efficient team. To cope with the amount and diversity of
information from many sources, a problem-solving method should have the capacity to facilitate
both natural and computer aided communication. Unfortunately, most efforts to assist group
problem solving have focused on the facilitation of the psychological component of the
experience without adequately dealing with the information and communication problems
involved.
The method to be presented addresses these needs by assuring that a balanced set of viewpoints
is represented, that a comprehensive range of information is brought into play, and that there is a
common framework to structure information handling and communication within the group.
Each role in the method, whether assumed by an individual or the group acting together,
represents a specialization of information and expertise. The roles and the relationships between
them provide the basis for organizing information, communication, and behavior. The use of
specialized roles as a commonly understood reference framework by the group is augmented by
various techniques of idea generation to assist creative thinking and by principles drawn from the
study of group dynamics to facilitate productive behavior. The result is a very effective
technique for managing problem-solving activity, for structuring and communicating information
during problem solving, and for analyzing the process of problem solving and its results.

BACKGROUND
The Role-Oriented Approach to Problem Solving did not originate in the field of group dynamics
but was developed to introduce a comprehensive system for computer-aided communication in
architecture. (1) Designed to accommodate normal communication between specialized
professionals in the building industry, that system was developed with careful attention to the
structure of thought and expression. Given the rich variety of problem-solving communication
during an architectural project, it became evident that the system could be applied to any
problem-solving activity in any particular medium for any purpose.
The theory behind the process was developed by the author between 1962 and 1969, while
obtaining Master's and Ph.D. degrees in Architecture at the University of Pennsylvania. During
that time the development of the theory benefited from research on an information system for
hospital planning supported by the U.S. Public Health Service (2) and on a classification system
for the building industry supported by the Center for Building Technology, National Bureau of
Standards. (3) The theory was strongly influenced by linguistics (Chomsky (4), Fries (5)),
cognitive psychology (Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin(6), Miller (1) , Piaget (8)), by library and
computer sciences (Ranganathan (10), Vickery (11), Feigenbaum and Feldman (9), Knowlton
(12)), and by the practice of designing. The distinctions of the system resulted from the
correlation of a vast number of linguistic forms, process models, and content classifications held
by their authors to be comprehensive regarding their subject matter. Among the most powerful of
these models are the conventions of scientific disclosure (13), the structure of computer
languages (14), and the gestalt principles (15), each of which manifest the distinctions of the
system. The role oriented approach became so useful in group-problem-solving that the
computational system it was to explain became secondary and, although of great potential utility,
was implemented only through proto programming in a PhD dissertation.
The first use of the scheme as a generalized method for problem solving occurred at the
Philadelphia College of Art, where it became a regular part of the professional practice course
for Industrial Design students and where much of the insight regarding its use as a group
problem solving method occurred. One such application was to help the class organize itself into
a design firm with a well-defined marketing approach consistent with its members' aspirations
and the realities of the marketplace. From this experience it became evident that the method
could be used to assess personal aptitudes and affinities for the various roles, to characterize and
facilitate interpersonal behavior, to build a powerful sense of group identity and motivation, and,
in general, to produce design consensus quickly and effectively. Similarly, it was clear that the
system did not require rigid interpretation: anyone could play any role, everyone could share in
all roles, and assumption of roles could vary at will, as long as others in the group understood
which role was being employed.
Demonstrations of the method at an art school, a vocationally oriented university, and an
academically distinguished university also revealed the effect of intellectual and cultural bias in
the acceptance of the technique by different users: The art school students entered into the
experience without inhibitions and adapted it freely to their purposes; the vocationally oriented
students worked through the method literally and sequentially, seeking the direction of the
instructor; the academicians dissected the method intellectually before reluctantly using it,

forming opinions in the process that inhibited their ability to enter fully into the experience.
While all three groups were ultimately successful in their use of the system, these demonstrations
underlined the need to introduce the system through an experiential approach. Users are most
comfortable with the system when it is presented as the framework for a cooperative learning
experience rather than as a system to be fully understood before use. Although possible, it is ill
advised to lead a group to discover the distinctions of the system in its own behavior. In one
experiment, members of a departmental faculty engaged in planning course assignments were
asked to describe what they would most like to teach. These statements were paraphrased in the
"language" of the method and happily accepted by each person. When the underlying structure of
distinctions and each person's self-specified role within it were revealed as a comprehensive and
coordinated whole, (with a new faculty member needed to assume an unwanted role) the entire
system of courses was rejected as too constraining on those involved. It is much more effective
to introduce the system as a tool for cooperative use and to let success in using it become its
justification.
The method received its first major public exposure at the 1971 Conference of Environmental
Design Educators in Key Biscayne, Florida, where it was applied to the problem of developing
public awareness of the Martin Luther King Boulevard Project, a major renewal effort then
underway in Miami. At this overnight session it was demonstrated that the group facilitator could
withdraw once the method was understood and that the system could be used to generate and
profile concepts with great efficiency: under extreme time pressure each group began to serially
process ideas by passing a problem statement card down the table to be filled out appropriately
by the specialist in each role. An entire library of proposals specified in the comprehensive
categories of the system, with criteria by which each of them could be evaluated, was developed
over night and edited for presentation to the Mayor of Miami the next day. As an outcome of this
experience, many participants introduced the method into their schools the following year. The
author subsequently led a session at Yale University focusing on the development of a design
program for a community center in an existing railroad station. Multiple actors played the users'
role in order to simulate the experience that would result. At the University of Washington,
Seattle, the method was used to solve the problem of determining the population mix and thus
the economic basis for the ecologically sound and socially equitable development of a site with
excellent water recreation potentials. The solution, focused by the communicator's role, was to
advertise the way of life possible on the island in the media appropriate to each social class to
determine the housing mix and financing plan based on the responses obtained. Further insight
into the manner in which each role can contribute to the solution of a problem occurred during an
application of the method at the Philadelphia College of Art, where the problem was to conceive
of a City Hall that would directly manifest representative democracy. The student playing the
normally passive "resource specifier" role, pre-empted all other roles by specifying that the only
construction materials that could be used were those brought by hand from the neighborhoods of
the city.
The method can also be used to organize the problem-solving efforts of large groups. In a session
at the Nova Scotia Technical College over 50 students worked in groups of seven on a single
problem. Other demonstrations of the method at the University of Detroit, Louisiana state

University and elsewhere typically led to closure on and consensus regarding a solution among
those involved within 3 hours.
THE ROLE STRUCTURE
The basis for the technique is a structured relationship between seven functional "roles"
regarding a problematic situation. The choice of seven roles corresponds to the limits of short-
term memory and reflects findings from the study of linguistic forms, gestalt principles,
cognitive behavior, and group dynamics, that suggested the optimum number of viewpoints to be
considered in a single context was 7 + or - 2. (16) The resulting framework for the method
functions in a manner that is analogous to the structure of a sentence in that the “'roles" have a
functional relationship to one another similar to the elements of a sentence. Each depends on the
others for subject matter, meaning, and context. As with a sentence, the "role structure" is
content free and may be applied at any level of discourse and to any subject with the degree of
license appropriate to the circumstances. Like the sentence form, it provides the organizing
framework for a "complete" unit of expression, the elements of which can be easily related to
those of other such expressions. Similarly, the framework of roles also serves as a reference
through which to assess and explore the structure and meaning of alternative or subordinate
"expressions".
Within the closed context provided by their structural links the individual "roles " partition the
subject matter of a problem or sub-problem according to seven functional categories. Like the
noun and verb forms in a sentence, these seven "aspectual roles" can have many interpretations
without losing their operational meaning. For example, both of the following interpretations
represent the distinctions of the system:
1. Directions 1. Goals
2. Elements 2. Resources
3. Combinations 3. Organizations
4. Forms 4. Programs
5. Processes 5. Implementation techniques
6. Measures 6. Evaluations
7. Experiences 7. Memories
These interpretations may be better understood by examining the following diagram.

Figure 1 System roles and information types.
In the first two arrays the first component is concerned with interpretive information, the second
with substantive specification, the third with substantive relationships, the fourth with
communicable representations, the fifth with procedural operations, the sixth with empirical
assessment, and the seventh with assimilation of information. In the system structure a header is
added to identify each instantiation of the framework.
As with any linguistic system, the particular labels selected to represent each role depend on the
subject, the level of abstraction at which it is being considered, and interpretation of the roles by
its users. For example, an architect and a structural engineer may communicate with one another
about the design/build process by representing it as consisting of seven stages: client interviews,
building program, schematic design, final design, working drawings, construction, construction
evaluation and project administration. If the focus of their consideration changed from the
User
Evaluations
Assessments
Knowledge
Memories
Plans/artifacts
Header
Objectives
Evaluator

overall process to their particular professional roles, they might choose to interpret the
distinctions otherwise: for example, for the architect the seven categories might be project
requirements, spaces to be included, their spatial organization, built form, construction process,
cost effectiveness and professional satisfaction. For the engineer, the seven categories might be
the site conditions, structural loads, organization and analysis, the structural system itself,
erecting techniques, behavior under load, cost estimates and implications. Both perspectives are
valid and by no means exclusive or absolute interpretations of the "role categorizations". They
illustrate the fact that each "role" represents a functional orientation that can be defined in terms
of particular goals, elements, organizations, forms, processes, products, measures and consequent
knowledge. Each role constitutes a complete subsystem expressing an aspect of the general
system.
More generally, each role represents a specialization regarding the type of information involved,
the conceptual patterns that apply, the forms of representation to be used, the processes, skills,
and technology required, the values and measures that are appropriate and the consequences that
can be anticipated. Each represents one aspect of the problematic situation correlated to its other
aspects. The ability to introduce, deny, or change information being dealt with defines the
intentional character of a role, while the information associated with the role defines its
substantive content. People easily comprehend and accept the distinctions of the method when
they are expressed in terms of the type of information and authority associated with each role.
THE METHOD AND ITS USE
A workshop format addressing a problem brought by one or more of the workshop participants is
typically used for teaching the basics of the method. At the beginning of the workshop the
structure of the method is described, the roles explained, the group dynamics policies discussed,
and specific Synectics techniques are illustrated.
It is desirable, at least in the beginning stages of learning this method, to have a facilitator whose
task it is, after explaining the roles and policies and answering questions regarding the process,
to set time limits, answer questions as they arise, call for a switch in or between roles in the event
of confusion or blockage, and, generally, to give structured feedback (itemized responses) to
improve the internalization of the roles and the dynamics of the group.
Each role is assigned to or selected by one person who is allowed to exercise absolute authority
(presumed expertise) over the type of information associated with the role. These roles and the
type of information they control are the following.
Problem Designator The problem designator presents the problem and controls all directive and
interpretive information (should not be played by the facilitator). Typically this information is in
the form of goal statements that address specific needs and desires.

Resource Specifier The resource specifier identifies, itemizes, and describes resources that can be
marshaled in response to the problem statement and controls all descriptive information.
Typically this information is in the form of an itemized list of attributes describing each item.
Resource Organizer The resource organizer organizes the specified resources in response to the
problem statements and controls all relational information. They are also responsible for
modeling and comparative analysis to assure fit to the problem and goals. Typically this
information is presented in a matrix or a linked-node, "bubble", or network diagram.
Form Giver/ Communicator The form giver controls explanatory expression and presentation.
They synthesize physical and communicable forms to express plans and their anticipated or
actual products. This information is often pictorial, but can take any form appropriate to a
medium or communication channel.
Actualizer-Doer The actualizer-doer implements the plan and realizes its result by controlling all
procedural information. This information is usually in the form of a program, sequential process,
or time line.
Evaluator The evaluator measures and evaluates progress in all roles and controls feedback. This
information is typically manifested as change in the Formative product, or stated in terms of
attaining goal criteria or values.
User The user responds to all preceding roles in terms of their particular needs, desires, and prior
knowledge. This role controls future interpretations. Information typically takes the form of
episodic reporting, generalizations, summations, and histories.
Generally these roles, forms, and constraints have proven to be recognizable, easily learned, and
quickly internalized by ordinary people. This is particularly true if they are self-selected and
correspond to natural aptitudes. Roles are learned through experience and, once internalized,
become the normal basis for communication in a group. (Distinctions are made in terms of the
roles and addressed to the person playing the role.) Roles appear to be readily applied to any
problem type, situation or circumstances.
GROUP DYNAMICS POLICIES
Three group dynamics policies, based on the Synectics method, are used to foster the positive
cooperation of the group. They describe attitudes and preferred responses that are cultivated in
all members of the group initially by the facilitator and later by the group itself.
The Spectrum Policy: Participants are encouraged to select the best in each idea, to itemize
specifically those things being responded to, and to give credit for contributions made.
The Synthesis Policy: Participants are encouraged to build on the ideas of others and to integrate
and correlate the various contributions.

The Empathic Listening Policy: Participants are encouraged to listen, not interrupt, and
paraphrase what they hear in order to encourage all participants to contribute to the group.
These policies, while simple and positive in spirit, are difficult to maintain in the face of the
normal differences and ego drives that human beings develop, especially in task-oriented groups.
Structured feedback by the facilitator to reinforce these policies, with an ongoing review of the
group's behavior, helps their internalization.
IDEA-GENERATING EXCURSIONS
Fantasy and metaphorical thinking are also employed as a means to stimulate imagination and to
generate ideas and gain insight into the structure of the problem and its potential solution. These
idea-generation techniques, most of which derive from the Synectics method, include the
following.
Brief Vacation Everyone simply takes a rest to release the tension of work. (Let's forget about the
problem for a while.)
Brainstorming Any idea is encouraged and accepted to quickly produce a list of ideas to
consider. (What items can we list?)
Free Associations Connections, however tenuous, with other ideas within the minds of the
participants are brought out. (What linkages can we recognize?)
Morphological Synthesis The formal properties of things are explored relative to one another
with a view to their integration. (What happens when we manipulate and synthesize information,
ideas or images?)
Direct Analogy An example, usually functional in nature, from another context that has
characteristics corresponding to the problem is examined. (How does something similar work?)
Essential Paradox A search for the nexus of the problem is undertaken by examining its
contradiction. (Let's reverse the evaluation criteria.)
Empathic Analogy The participant identifies with the object of consideration in order to "get
inside" and feel its relationship to the problem from an intrinsic point of view. (What would it be
like if I experienced it?)
Each excursion technique offers a particular kind of license to the imagination to escape from the
immediate constraints of the problem to produce different kinds of behaviors/information
products: a list of alternative ideas from brainstorming, a useful insight from analogy, and so on.
While these seven idea-generating techniques manifest the distinctions of the system, they need
not be applied exclusively to the role they manifest. They are used by themselves or in
combination, as appropriate to the situation and the needs of the group. The facilitator introduces

the excursions whenever the progress of the group would seem to benefit, doing so until
participants can conduct excursions themselves.
The products of these idea generating excursions are usually not total solutions and must
therefore be fitted back into the context of the problem. This is one of the weakest aspects of
traditional Synectics theory. Fortunately, the role-oriented approach offers a variety of "handles"
with which to work this return to the realities of the problem. Each role player is disposed to
assimilate the product of the excursion into his/her own role view, and particular products of an
excursion may be returned to the most appropriate role. Whether all or a few roles are invoked,
the products of the excursion can be immediately returned to a full framework of analysis and
evaluation understood by the entire group.
PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCEDURE
After an introduction to the approach each person elects to take or is assigned one of the seven
roles. (An "alter ego" back up person or team can be associated with each role.)
There should ideally be a large circular table next to a blackboard or tablet display. The problem
designator should sit facing the blackboard, and the form giver, who will record and present the
work, next to the board. The resource specifier sits to the left of the problem designator, and so
on through the organizer, form giver, actualizer, evaluator and user. (It is possible, but not
preferable, for the problem designator, user, and evaluator to be played by a single person.)
Arrangement of participants is shown in Figure 2.

Since a logical dependency exists between one role and the next, it is convenient to first
approach the problem sequentially. This may develop from the user to the problem designator or
vice versa. Once the first cycle of all seven roles has been completed, the procedure may be
opened to questions in order to clarify roles and involve the group as a whole. Usually this leads
to role focusing; the selection, more, or less by apparent consensus, of one
role/information type as the one requiring the attention of the group. The dialogue
between roles evolves as the problem is addressed. Constraints and potentials arise as the
needs and contributions of each role become apparent. Said otherwise, as people recognize the
constraints on their own solution space or as they see opportunities for others, exchange
develops, focusing, broadening, or elaborating the information established in the various roles.
In the basic sequence the problem designator first briefly states the problem, paying special
attention to the crux of the problem, its symptoms, the boundaries or criteria for the solution,
examples of possible solutions, itemized reasons why they are inadequate, and what he or she as
"client" wishes to take from the session. Usually the other participants are then asked by the
facilitator to generate goals within their specialization based on this statement of the problem.
The designator then selects one or two highly interrelated goals for initial consideration. Each
role player then responds to the problem as given, the selected goal, and the responses of those in
preceding roles. For one or two cycles each person is encouraged to respond quickly and in
order. Soon, however, there is dialogue, suggestions toward solution, and bartering, as the
participants recognize the implications of each role and the information being established by
others. When anyone (especially the evaluator) feels a blockage in the progress of the group,
they may call for an excursion. One person (initially the facilitator) conducts the excursion,
Evaluator
User

typically asking for goals related to the immediate needs, then suggesting an appropriate idea
generation technique. For example, the facilitator may select a key word from a goal statement
(say, "closure" in the goal of finding a closure for a thermos bottle that does not take up space).
He or she may then ask for several examples of closure from a different conceptual universe
(say, optics), perhaps calling for the organizing principle, form, or operation of the examples
(say, an eyelid or camera shutter) and finally for interpretations related to the original goal (a
closing device made out of pliable material that will contract like the eyelid into the neck of the
thermos). During such an excursion participants abandon their roles and the free generation of
ideas is encouraged. Only after such ideas have surfaced does the facilitator guide the group back
into the role-oriented framework, where the ideas are developed and interpreted in the context it
provides.
The procedure continues until the problem designator and users are satisfied with one or more
possible solutions or until the time limit for the session is up. In the experience to date all but two
sessions have led to solutions that all persons in the group could accept. In almost every case
these solutions were obtained within three hours from initial exposure to the method, in
circumstances that were less than ideal, and with problems that were very complex and difficult
to apprehend. Not surprisingly, an observer at one of the sessions noted that enthusiasm for the
process closely modeled the levels of frustration and satisfaction of the participants. Success and
insight break rather swiftly, often on the heels of a period of deep frustration and usually from an
individual insight.
Variations in the process may be introduced as needed in a particular situation. For example, in
many community or advocacy situations there is no problem designator independent from the
users, and these roles are collapsed even as they become more differentiated. When there are
several interest groups, each briefly states its perspective on the problem and provides
information and response to the evolving situation as needed. As they tend to generate relatively
unstructured information, it is important that they respond in terms of the roles.
The evaluator and facilitator roles are also sometimes collapsed, as both tend to reflect how well
the process is fulfilling its potential. The distinction should be preserved if possible to permit the
evaluator to focus on the substantive approach to the problem and the facilitator to focus on the
interactions of the group.
Although roles usually remain constant during a session, all participants are exposed to every
role and often assist the person in another role. Cooperation typically develops as a consequence
of a person in one role realizing the potential or the constraints emerging through the playing out
of another. Like chess, the role-defined approach tends to involve its participants in thinking out
and evaluating implications and strategies by providing a framework of authority and action into
which to project. Synectics ideas and techniques, on the other hand, offer an effective
counterpoint to the logical and constraining pattern of the roles by offering escape from them
through fantasy and metaphor. Together, both methods complement each other. Although the
value of the metaphorical excursion for improving the creative performance of groups is
recognized, it does not have a logically consistent framework to aid in evaluating the ideas
generated. The structure of the role-defined approach provides such a framework, one that
appears to have many applications in analysis, management, and communications.

REFERENCES
1. Charles H. Burnette, "A Linguistic Structure for Architectonic Communication," Publication
of the School of Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C., 1969.
2. Charles H. Burnette, An Information System for Hospital Planning, USPHS HM00420- 01,
Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Pa., 1966.
3. Charles H. Burnette, The ARC System, A Functional Organization for Building Information,
PB 177, 829, Clearinghouse, National Bureau of Standards, Springfield, Va., Nov. 1967.
4. Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague, 1957.
5. C. C. Fries, The Structure of English, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1952.
6. J. S. Bruner, J. L. Goodnow, and G. A. Austin, A Study of Thinking, Wiley, New York, 1965.
7. G. A. Miller, E. Galanter, and K. H. Pribram, Plans and the Structure of Behavior, Holt,
Reinhart, and Winston, New York, 1960.
8. Jean Piaget, The Child's Construction of Reality, Basic Books, New York, 1954.
9. E. A. Feigenbaum and J. Feldman, Computers and Thought, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.
10. S. R. Ranganathan, The Colon Classification, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.,
1965.
11. B. C. Vickery, Faceted Classi!ication-A Guide to Construction and Special Schemes, ASLIB,
London, 1960.
12. K. C. Knowlton, "A Programmer's Description of L6, Bell Telephone Laboratories Low
Level Linked List Language," Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J., 1966.
13. A. Tarski, An Introduction to Logic, Oxford University Press, New York, 1965.
14. J. E. Sammett, Programming Languages, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1967.
15. Julius Hochberg, Perception, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1964.

16. G. A. Miller, "The Magical Number Seven ±2: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing
Information," Psychological Review, Vol. 63, 1956, pp. 81-97.

A ROLE-ORIENTED APPROACH TO PROBLEM-SOLVING

More Related Content

Similar to A ROLE-ORIENTED APPROACH TO PROBLEM-SOLVING (20)

More from Joe Andelija (20)

A ROLE-ORIENTED APPROACH TO PROBLEM-SOLVING