DOCUMENT RESUME ED 089 449 · ed 089 449. author title. institution spons agency bureau no pub date...

ED 089 449

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

BUREAU NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 006 036

Nagle, John M.; Balderson, James H.Group Problem Solving: The D.A.F. Approach. FinalReport.Oregon Univ., Eugene. Center for Educational policyManagement.National. Inst. of Education (DREW), Washington,D.C.Project-3-0085Mar 74NE-C-00-3-008546p.Publications Department, CEPM, 1472 Kincaid Street,Eugene, Oregon 97401 ($2.00, Quantity Discounts)

MF-$0.75 HC-$1.85 PLUS POSTAGE*Conflict Resolution; Decision Making Skills; GroupBehavior; *Group Dynamics; Information Seeking;Information Utilization; *Problem Solving; *ResearchProjects; *Systems.Approach

ABSTRACTDAP is the acronym for a set of concepts and

procedures that the members of any group can employ to refine theirproblemsolving skills and bring them to bear on real-life, day-to-daygroup needs. Based on a particular view of human beings,communication, and the process of inquiry, DAP involves the membersof a group in generating and using three kinds of information:designative (D) about the "what is" state of some one or some thing;appraisive (A) about "what is preferred"; and prescriptive (P) thatsuggests what to do when discrepancies can be identified between"what is" and "what is preferred". As group members generate and usethese three kinds of information, they move systematically throughthree different phases of the problemsolving process. They begin byidentifying their individue... and common problems clearly andspecifically. They then develop plans or prescriptions for dealingwith the most critical of these common problems; and they completethe cycle of problemsolving by implementing their plans, monitoringeffects, and evaluating their success as joint problemsolvingsystems. The major interest of DAP is in finding ways to eliminate orreduce unnecessary and pointless conflict, misunderstanding, andfrustration. (Author)

%al

IMP

Group

Problem Solving:

The DAP Approach

John M. Nagle4 James H. Balderson

A Final Project Report from theCenter for Educational Policy and Management

Eugene, OregonMarch 1974

I

S OFFAQ-TML `4T OF HEALTHtOUCA7 42,N &ALIFARENATIONIAi_INSTrILITE Or

COUCATiC"wEP;,0-i. c ForPO

'-f, t r,6

The Center for Educational Policy and Manage-ment (CEPM) at the University of Oregon is supportedin part by funds from the National Institute of Educa-tion (NIE). The Center employs authorities from avariety of professional fields who are encouraged tofreely express their views on various subjects. Anyopinions expressed in this publication, therefore, donot necessarily reflect those of the Center, nor do theynecessarily represent the policies or positions of theNational Institute of Education. No official endorse-ment, therefore, should be inferred from either source.

The Center for Educational Policy and Managementwas established on July 1, 1973. Based on a commonorientation to the formation of educational policy andto the management of educational institutions, fivealready existing units at the University of Oregon formthe base for the Center's three divisions. The Centerfor the Advanced Study of Educational Administra-tion provides the backbone for the Research andDevelopment Division; educational administration,higher education, and educational policy are the de-gree program areas within the Division of Instructionand Field Services; and the ERIC Clearinghouse onEducational Management is the major unit in the In-formation Services Division.

ii

ContentsFOREWORD iv

PREFACE

Chapter 1: A Brief History 1

1. Developmental Work: July 1969-June 1972 22. Table A: A List of the Pilot-Test Uses of DAP

Between 1969 and 1972 5-63. Preparation for Production and Field Test:

July-November 1972 74. Phase-Out Activities: December 1972-

June 1973 10

Chapter 2: Conceptual Overview 11

1. The Human Being as a Problem-SolvingSystem 11

2. Joint Inquiry for Joint Problem- Solving. 143. The Process Itself: Logic and Psychology 164. Facilitation in Groups and Organizations 17

Chapter 3: The Joint Problem-Solving Process __ 201. Phase One: Problem Identification 202. Phase Two: Plan Development 233. Phase Three: Implementation and Assess-

ment of Results 24

Chapter 4: A Survey of Pilot Session Participants 261. A Description of the Survey 262. A Summary of Findings 273. Some Post-Session Uses of DAP 284. Representative Comments 30

Chapter 5: Reflections on DAP and Its Potential. 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY 39

Ill

Foreword

Problem solving. From Aristotle to Dewey to Church.man, that has been the essential element in individualgrowth and effective group functioning. Despite thevolumes of rhetoric devoted to the topic, however,groups in general, and school faculties in particular,continue to countenance difficulties in their attemptsto define and solve the problems facing them. Consist-ently, problems tend to be defined more in terms ofprescriptions for action than as discrepancies betweenactual and desired states of affairs. Commonly, groupsspend more time dealing with difficulties encounteredin how they function than with the topics that broughthem together, frequently without recognizing thatthose are separate issues.

The research reported here represents an attemptto develop a technology of problem solving and todevise training materials to increase the effectivenessof groups as they engage in problem solving activities.Unfortunately, attempts to secure funding t o con-tinue the research were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, itseemed important to share the early findings withothers. It is just possible that this sharing will stimulatethe continued development of the ideas contuinedherein.

The authors are both affiliated with the Center forEducational Policy and Management at the Universityof Oregon. John M. Nagle is a program director andJames H. Balderson a research assistant in the center'sresearch and development division (CASEA).

Max G. Abbott, Director

iv

Preface

DAP is the acronym for a set of concepts and proce-dures that the members of any group can employ torefine their problem-solving skills and bring them tobear on real-life, day-to-day group needs. Based upona particular view of human beings, communication,and the process of inquiry, DAP involves the membersof a group in generating and using three kinds of in-formation: designative information (D) about the "whatis" state of some one or some thing; comparable ap-praisive information (A) about "what is preferred;" andprescriptive information (P) that suggests what to dowhen discrepancies can be identified between "whatis" and "what is preferred."

As group members generate and use these threekinds of information, they move systematically throughthree different phases of the problem-solving process.They begin by identifying their individual and common problems clearly and specifically. They then de-velop plans or prescriptions for dealing with the mostcritical of those common problems. And they completethe cycle of problem-solving by implementing theirplans, monitoring effects, and evaluating their successas joint problem-solving systems.

This is certainly not to suggest that DAP is a guaran-teed way for a group to solve all of its problems simplyand without conflict. It is, however, a set of ideas andtechniques that can help a group "smoke out" some ofits most important problems, "unpack" them to man-ageable size, and then collectively develop plans fortheir solution. The major interest of DAP is in finding

ways to eliminate or reduce unnecessary and pointlessconflict, misunderstanding, and frustration.

The DAP Project began in the spring of 1959 whenTerry L. Eidell, then director of the Center's Instruc-tional Materials Development Program, prepared theoriginal proposal for its support. In June 1969, F. LeeBrissey and John M. Nagle, Center research associ-ates, and Larry Craggs and Donald Drozda, graduateresearch assistants, were hired to staff the new proj-ect, each of them on a part-time basis. During the firstyear of work, these four individuals were able to de-vote time to the project equivalent to two full-time staffmembers. In July 1970, however, three of the four leftthe Center, sharply reducing the personnel support ofthe project throughout its remaining three years. Tosupplement the one remaining original staff member,the Center subcontracted with Dr. Brissey for work insome phases of the project between 1970 and 1972 andadded James H. Baldorson to the project's staff as ahalf-time graduate research assistant during the 1972-73 academic year.

As with any effort to develop concepts and proce-dures that are useful to others, the development of DAPowes a great deal to a number of groups and individ-ualsto the U. S. Office of Education for its four yearsof financial support; to Max G. Abbott and Terry L.Eidell for their Center support; to the three graduateresearch assistants who provided invaluable back-upsupport; to the nearly 500 individuals who listened tothe ideas, participated in the processes, and providedus with extremely helpful reactions and suggestions;and, most important, to Lee Brissey, whose grasp ofgeneral systems theory served to undergird DAPthroughout its development and testing.

In conclusion, while the inability to bring DAP toclosure has certainly been disappointing, the oppor-

vi

Preface

tunity to pursue ideas and procedures that are vital toany group's success as a fully integrated problem-solv-ing system has indeed been exciting and, hopefully, asenlightening for others as it has been for us. If, for in-stance, this brief report stimulates and helps others tothink more systematically about problem-solving ingroups than they might otherwise, the four years willhave had a satisfying pay-off.

John M. NagleEugeneNovember 1973

vii

CHAPTER 1

A Brief History

The original proposal for the Center's DAP project,prepared in the spring of 1969, was based upon severalassumptions about schools and the people who workin them. It assumed, first, that a school isor should bea purposive organization. Second, it assumed that aschool's success and viability depend substantiallyupon its ability to be a fully adaptive system. And third,it assumed that to be adaptive or self-corrective, botha school as an organization and the groups and indi-viduals within it must continuously behave self-reflec-tively, identifying their most critical needs and devis-ing procedures for dealing effectively with thoseneeds:

Guided by these assumptions, the ultimate objec-tives of the proposed project were threefold:

1. to derive from the literature and research on group proc-esses and problem-solving a repertoire of tested techniquesthat can be translated into packages of instructional mate-rials for use with intact school staff groups to improve theirskills in solving convening and emergent problems;

2. to actually produce these packages of instructional mate-rials:

3. to develop a program for training consultants who can usethe instructional znaterials with actual intact groups inschool settings.'

Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration,Program Plan and Budget Request, Volume 1, Program Plan (Eu-gene: CASEA, October 15, 1970), P. 7(3.

1

2

Between June 1969 and July 1972, the staff of theproject completed approximately half of the originallyproposed scope of work: they developed a set of con-cepts, operations, and materials relevant to groupproblem-solving, labeled the product "the DAP ap-proach to joint problem-solving," tested it with anumber of groups and individuals, and refined it forfield-testing. However, the final planned phase of theprojectproduction of multiple sets of the materials,training of consultants, and a summative evaluation ofthe DAP approach to group problem-solvinghas notbeen and is not likely to be completed. In December1972, as a result of its comprehensive assessment of on-going R and D projects, the National Institute of Educa-tion (NIE), the Center's primary funding source for re-search and development, ordered that the DAP projectbe terminated by June 1973.

A brief history of the project can be divided intothree major segments of activity: (1) approximatelythree years of developmental work on the DAP con-cepts, operations, and materials; (2) six months of workpreparing the prototype materials for production anddeveloping detailed plans for the field-test; and (3) afinal six months of activities related to phasing out theproject.

Developmental Work: July 1969 -June 1972

During the summer and fall of 1969, the staff of theproject surveyed the literature on organizational prob-lem-solving, group processes, communication, generalsystems theory, and related topics, seeking to identifytested concepts and techniques that could be used tohelp groups in schools identify and cope with theirmost critical, common problems. In late fall 1969, how-ever, given the complexity of ideas discovered and therelative dearth of adequately tested techniques, thestaff revised its strategy for achieving the project's ob-jectives. Rather than derive group techniques eclec-

A Brief History 3

tically from other sources, the staff decided to developand to test its own conceptual framework, set of pro-cedures, and array of materials for group problem-solving by building, at least initially, upon an earlierrelated CASEA research project conducted by Brissey,Hills, and Fosmire.2

For the next two and one-half years, therefore, thestaff of the DAP project became heavily involved in arange of developmental activities. These included (1)continuing to monitor relevant literature; (2) attempt-ing to conceptualize carefully what it means for one tohave a problem or need; (3) developing proceduresthat an intact work group in a school (e.g., a teachingteam, a subject-matter department, or a school faculty)might employ to identify and cope with their mostcritical, common problems; (4) developing written andaudio-visual materials to explain and facilitate thespecific procedures being developed; and, perhapsmost important, (5) pilot-testing with intact work groupsin schools many of the concepts, operations, and mate-rials that were gradually evolving. Chapter 2 of thisreport presents a summary of the basic concepts under-lying DAPits particular view of human beings, or-ganizations, communications, problems, and the proc-esses involved in both individual and organizationalproblem-solving. Chapter 3 summarizes the proce-dures that a group employs as it moves systematicallythrough the DAP problem-solving process.

During the project's three years of developmentalactivity, project staff members took advantage of near-ly a dozen opportunities to expose others to the ideasthat were being developed and to test with them boththe procedures and the materials that supported thoseideas. Most of the project's pilot-test situations, which2 F. Lee Brissey, Jean Hills, and Fred Fosmire, Problems, Problem-Solving, and Human Communications: A Laboratory Approach toTraining in Interpersonal Communication, A Technical Report forCASEA and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, 1969.

4

are summarized in Table A, provided the staff with anopportunity to test only Phase I of the total DAP proc-ess, the phase that involves a group in identifying,refining, and assigning priorities to its current prob-lems or needs. In only three of the pilot-test situationswere staff members able to spend sufficient time witha group to move it beyond the identification of criticalproblems to the actual development and implementa-tion of plans to meet those problems. The groups in-volved in these pilot-test situations included graduatestudents, teaching teams, school faculties, universitydepartments, and administrative cabinets. Chapter 4of this report presents the results of a follow-up surveyof 74 individuals who participated in one or more ofthese pilot-test situations. The survey, conducted inspring 1973, attempted to discover how, if at all, theDAP process and its products had been useful to themeither during the actual pilot-test experience or subse-quent to it.

Throughout the three-year developmental period,"The DAP Consultant's Manual for a Systematic Ap-proach to Joint Problem-Solving," became the centralvehicle for explaining DAP and for monitoring changesand refinements in both its conceptual framework andits group procedures.' A first draft of the "Manual"was prepared in June h)70. By June 1971, it had beenthoroughly revised, and in June 1972, it was revised yetagain for a two-week summer school course conductedfor graduate students at the University of Oregon. Bythe end of the summer of 1972, three years after begin-ning the project, the DAP concepts and operationsdescribed in the third draft of the "Manual" seemed tobe sufficiently well developed and pilot-tested to jus-tify moving into the final major phase of the project:3 F. Lee Brissey and John M. Nagle, The DAP Consultant's Manualfor a Systematic Approach to Joint Problem-Solving (Eugene: Con-ter for the Advanced Study of Educational Adminisbaction, Uni-versity of Oregon, 1970, 1971, 1972), mimeographed, out of print.

Pilo

t-te

st A

ppro

xim

ate

Num

ber

Dat

es

Tab

le A

: A L

ist o

f th

e Pi

lot-

Tes

t Use

s of

DA

PB

etw

een

1969

cm

d 19

72N

atur

e an

d L

ocat

ion

of th

e G

roup

Phas

es/A

ctiv

ities

and

Freq

uenc

y of

Ses

sion

sof

DA

P T

este

dN

umbe

r of

Part

icip

ants

110/69 - 12/69

'22/

70-5

/70

'310

/704

/71

410

/70

51/

71-2

/71

'65/

71

Mas

ters

deg

ree

stud

ents

in a

teac

her

edu-

catio

n pr

ogra

m. U

nive

rsity

ofO

rego

n.(t

wic

e a

wee

k fo

r on

e qu

arte

r)E

ntir

e st

aff

of a

n el

emen

tary

sch

ool i

n th

eE

ugen

e Pu

blic

Sch

ools

. Eug

ene.

Ore

gon.

(onc

e a

wee

k af

ter

scho

ol f

or th

ree

mon

ths)

Tw

o el

emen

tary

sch

ool t

each

ing

team

s in

the

Sale

m P

ublic

Sch

ools

. Sal

em. O

rego

n.(o

nce

a w

eek

afte

r sc

hool

for

fou

r m

onth

s)

Dep

artm

ent o

f Sp

ecia

l Edu

catio

n. U

nive

r-si

ty o

f O

rego

n. (

a on

e-da

y w

orks

hop)

Mas

ters

deg

ree

stud

ents

in th

e D

epar

tmen

tof

Edu

catio

nal A

dmin

istr

atio

n, U

nive

rsity

of

Bri

tish

Col

umbi

a. (

duri

ng th

e in

itial

ses

-si

ons

of a

uni

vers

ity c

ours

e)G

roup

s of

adm

inis

trat

ors

and

teac

hers

fro

mtw

enty

-ono

sch

ools

in S

helb

y C

ount

ySc

hool

s. M

emph

is. T

enne

ssee

. (si

x ho

urs

per

grou

p du

ring

a o

ne-w

eek

inse

rvic

ew

orks

hop)

Tes

ted

som

e of

the

initi

al c

once

pts

with

par

-tic

ipan

ts: a

lso

deve

lope

d in

itial

DA

P pr

one-

18-2

0du

ress

for

pro

blem

-ide

ntif

icat

ion.

Tes

ted

som

e of

the

revi

sed

conc

epts

abo

utin

divi

dual

and

gro

up p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng e

ye-

18-2

0to

ms;

als

o te

sted

pro

cedu

res

for

iden

tifyi

ngpr

oble

ms,

sel

ectin

g th

ose

to b

e w

orke

d on

.an

d m

ovin

g to

war

d so

lutio

ns.

Pilo

t-te

sted

all

of th

e D

AP

conc

epts

. pro

ce-

dure

s. a

nd m

ater

ials

as

they

wer

e th

en d

e-14

-16

velo

ped

and

so in

volv

ed th

e tw

o te

achi

ngte

ams

in th

e fi

rst v

ersi

on o

f Ph

ases

L 1

1. a

ndII

I of

the

DA

P jo

int p

robl

em-s

olvi

ng p

roce

ss.

Tes

ted

Phas

e I

proc

edur

es (

prob

lem

iden

tifi-

catio

n, r

efin

emen

t and

pri

oriti

zing

) w

ith th

e45

-50

entir

e st

aff

of th

e de

part

men

tE

mpl

oyed

par

ts o

f al

l thr

ee p

hase

s of

DA

?to

hel

p st

uden

ts d

efin

e th

e go

als

and

cont

est

12-1

6of

thei

r m

aste

rs d

egre

e pr

ogra

ms.

Tes

ted

Phas

e I

conc

epts

, pro

cedu

res.

and

mat

eria

ls w

ith e

ach

of th

e tw

enty

-one

gro

ups

in a

n ef

fort

to h

elp

them

iden

tify

and

talk

abou

t the

ir m

ost p

ress

ing

prob

lem

s w

ithin

120-

130

each

sch

ool b

uild

ing.

Gn

Pilo

t-te

xt A

ppro

xim

ate

Num

ber

Dat

es

(Tab

le A

con

tinue

d)N

atur

e an

d L

ocat

ion

of th

e G

roup

Phas

es /A

ctiv

ities

and

Freq

uenc

y of

Ses

sion

sof

DA

P T

este

dN

umbe

r of

Part

icip

ants

'76/

71

811/71

911/71

'10

1172

'11

3/72

'12

6/72

Prin

cipa

ls a

nd te

ache

rs f

rom

the

Sale

mPu

blic

Sch

ools

. Sal

em. O

rego

n. (

a on

e-w

eek.

thir

ty-f

ive-

hour

wor

ksho

p)

Dep

artm

ent o

f C

urri

culu

m a

nd I

nstr

uctio

n.U

nive

rsity

of

Ore

gon.

Co

one-

day

wor

k-sh

op)

Dea

n's

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Cab

inet

. Col

lege

of

Edu

catio

n. U

nive

rsity

of

Ore

gon.

(a

one-

day

sess

ion)

The

ent

ire

facu

lty o

f W

inde

mer

e H

igh

Scho

ol in

Van

couv

er. B

ritis

h C

olum

bia.

(a

oned

ay s

essi

on)

The

ent

ire

staf

fs o

f th

e tw

o hi

gh s

choo

l cor

-re

ctio

nal I

nstit

utio

ns in

Ore

gon.

(a

two-

day

sess

ion)

Sum

mer

sch

ool s

tude

nts

at th

e U

nive

rsity

of

Ore

gon.

(fo

ur h

ours

per

day

for

two

wee

ks)

Part

icip

ants

in e

ach

of th

ese

seve

n pi

lot-

test

situ

atio

ns w

ere

incl

uded

inth

e su

rvey

con

duct

ed in

spr

ing

I973

. and

des

crib

ed. i

n . C

hapt

er 4

.

Con

duct

ed a

n in

tens

ive

revi

ew o

f th

e D

AP

conc

epts

. pro

cedu

res

and

nota

rial

as

they

then

wer

e; in

volv

ed d

iscu

ssio

n an

d re

actio

n.si

mul

atio

n of

the

phas

es, a

nd s

ugge

stio

ns f

orm

ater

ials

rev

isio

n.

Em

ploy

ed P

hase

I p

roce

dure

s (p

robl

emid

entif

icat

ion,

ref

inem

ent,

and

prio

ritiz

ing)

30-3

5to

hel

p th

e st

aff

rede

fine

its

mos

t pre

ssin

gne

eds.

Em

ploy

ed P

hase

I p

roce

dure

s (e

mbl

emid

entif

icat

ion-

ref

inem

ent a

nd p

rior

itizi

ng)

12-1

4to

hel

p th

e C

abin

et r

edef

ine

the

mos

t pre

ss-

ing

need

s of

the

Col

lege

.E

mpl

oyed

Pha

se I

to a

ssis

t the

sta

ff in

its

need

to d

efin

e cu

alcu

lar,

inst

ruct

iona

l. an

d80

-90

adm

inis

trat

ive

goal

s of

the

scho

.,1.

Tes

ted

in a

larg

e gr

oup

setti

ng P

hase

I a

ndII

of

DA

P in

on

effo

rt to

hel

p th

e st

affs

of

75-8

5th

e tw

o sc

hool

s id

entif

y th

eir

mos

t cri

tical

cosm

os p

robl

ems

and

begi

n to

pos

e so

lu-

tions

to f

ourt

een

of th

ose

prob

lem

s.C

ondu

cted

a f

inal

Int

ensi

ve r

evie

w o

f th

eD

AP

conc

epts

. pro

cedu

res,

and

mat

eria

ls14

-16

prio

r to

pre

para

tion

of th

e fi

nal p

roto

type

:in

volv

ed d

iscu

ssio

n an

d re

actio

n, s

imul

atio

nof

the

phas

es, a

nd s

ugge

stio

ns f

or r

efin

e-m

ent

12-1

4

tT

A Brief History 7

an intensive field-test of DAP in a significantly largenumber of sites.

Preparation for Production and Field Test:July-November 1972

Between July and November 1972, the staff of theproject shifted attention from developmental work topreparation of a careful field-test of the DAP prototypeprocedures and materials. In their April 1972 proposalto NIE for funds to continue the work begun in 1969,and then again in the October 1972 addendum to thatproposal, staff members described the need for a field-test as follows:

The effective operation of schools depends considerably onthe ability of students, teachers, administrators, and supportpersonnel to "smoke out" their most important common prob-lems, "unpack" them to manageable size, and then collectivelydevelop and implement plans for their solution. Three yewsof work in CASEA's DAP Project have produced (1) a con-ceptualization of the problem-solving process in terms of desig-native (D), appraisive (A), and prescriptive (P) inquiry;and (2) a prototype set of procedures and materials that aconsultant can use to facilitate a group's problem-solvingefforts.

As part of this developmental effort, program personnel havetested all or part of the DAP concepts, procedures, and mate-rials with over 500 Individuals from a variety of educationalorganizations. Both formal and informal reactions to thesepilot-test situations have been sufficiently positive to warrantcontinued refinement of DAP .

The critical need now . is for a summative, field-test evalua-tion of DAP!

More specifically, the staff of the program identifiedfive questions about DAP that needed to be answered.4 Revised Basic Program Plan for Program R1506: Evaluating DAP(Eugene: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Adminis-tration, University of Oregon, 1972), mimeographed.

8

The first three were clearly evaluative; the last twowere primarily of research interest.

1. Of what value are the DAP concepts, procedures, and mate-rials and to whom:

2. Can these materials be used to train individuals to be DAPprocess coordinators and to employ its concepts and mate-rials in group totting?

3. Can these trained process coordinators then use the DAPconcepts, procedures, and materials to help groups inschools identify, prioritize, and solve their most critical,common problems?

4. Is DAP more applicable to some kinds of groups found inschools than to others?

5. And what differences result if the DAP process coordinatoris a regular member of the group, rather than a consultantto it or an administrator of it?

To conduct the field-test, the staff of the project pro-posed to identify 20-25 individuals currently employedin administrative positions in schools and 20-25 individ-uals currently employed in non-administrative posi-tions. Each of these 40-50 individuals would be pre-pared to serve as a DAP process coordinator, and, dur-ing the 1973-74 school year, he would be asked to ern-ploy the DAP concepts, operations, and materials witheither his own or other groups. Throughout the year,evaluative and research data relevant to the questionsraised earlier would be collected by members of theproject's staff, analyzed periudically, and used to pre-pare a summative evaluation report on DAP. Not onlywould the field-test allow the staff to complete thescope of work originally proposed in 1969, but it wouldalso add an important evaluative dimension to theproject.

In addition to planning specifically for the field-test,the staff devoted the last six months of 1972 to prepar-ing the DAP prototype materials for production. Theyattempted to derive from the "Manual," which had.

A 13rief History 9

already proven to be extremely helpful, a set of writtenand audio-visual materials that a trained DAP processcoordinator could employ as he worked with his ownor with some other group. As described to NIE, thesematerials were expected to include the following:

Three Manuals for the DAP Process Coordinator

1. "The Human Being, Communication, and Problem-Solving"(a discussion of what it means to behave as a process co-ordinator; the distinction between process and content con-sulting; human beings as problem-solving systems; the fivelevels of communicative contact; joint inquiry in groups;and the logic and psychology of the problem-solvingprocess)

2. "The DAP Operations and Procedures"(descriptions of the three major phases and the differentactivities within each phase of the joint problem-solvingprocess; procedural instructions to the coordinator; proce-dural instructions to group members; materials for groups;and masters for overhead projection)

3. "The Levels and Modes of Interpersonal Communication'(a more conceptual treatment of the problem-solving proc-ess in groups and of the ideas introduced in the first "Man -ual' for a DAP process coordinator)

Five Filmstrips with Accompanying Audio Tapes

(audio-visual descriptions of the basic DAP concepts relevantto human beings, communication, organizations, problem-solving, and the DAP problem-solving process itself)

A Handbook for Group Members

(including introductory comments, transcriptions of the film-strip tapes, selected illustrations, descriptions of each phase inthe DAP process, and directions for each group activity)

In effect, the staff of the project expected to design atotal array of materials for both DAP coordinators andthe groups with which they would be working.

10

Phase-Out Activities: December 1972 -June 1973In Avember 1972, NIE instructed the Center to termi-

nate the DAP project by June 1973. In the "Curtailmentand Phase-Out Plan" submitted in midJanuary 1973,the staff of the project concluded that, given the in-adequacy of the phase-out budget to support comple-tion of the proposed field-test, phase-out money couldbest be used to prepare a final report, one that sum-marized the project's efforts to date and provided thebest information available on the DAP concepts andmaterials and on their potential uses. More specifi-cally, the staff outlined a final report that wouldinclude:

(1) a history of the development of the DAP concepts andprocedures, including a description of the materials asthey now stand;

(2) the conceptualization of DAP;(3) a description of the DAP operating procedures;(4) the results of a follow-up survey of the uses of the DAP

procedures and of reactions to their use: and(5) reflections on the DAP materials, including their potential

for future development.

13ecause this document constitutes that Final Report,it should be emphasized that neither the DAP conceptsnor their related operations have been adequatelytested by individuals outside the project to warranttheir being viewedat this point, at least--as any-thing more than promising ideas and potential proce-dures relevant to group problem-solving.

CHAPTER 2

A Conceptual Overview

Supporting the DAP approach to problem-solving isa specific set of concepts about human beings, commu-nication, groups and individuals, problems and needs,and the process of inquiry by which problems can beidentified, and solutions can be developed and imple-mented. Although they have many sources, most of theconcepts have their origins in the rapidly developingliterature on general systems theory, human communi-cation, and organizational development. More specifi-cally, they build on three important assumptions:

(1) Group problem-solving involves individuals whoare themselves fully integrated problem-solving sys-tems.

(2) Both group and individual problem-solving in-volves processes that are potentially rational, struc-tured, and systematic.

(3) The things that go wrong when groups try to iden-tify and solve their problems are really not different inkind from the things that can go awry when individ-uals try to engage in those same activities.

The Human Being as a Problem-Solving System

Generally speaking, man engages in a continuoussearch for satisfying relationships with the world inwhich he lives. One way to identify such relationshipsis to say that they exist when there is little appreciabledifference between the actual conditions characteri-

11

12

zing a particular situation and those that are pre-ferred. By the same token, man's relationship with theworld in which he lives becomes less and less satisfy-ing as he discovers more and more discrepanciesbetween those actual and preferred conditions. Bydefinition, therefore, each discrepancy between "is"and "ought" becomes for him a problem, and each ef-fort to reduce or eliminate one of those discrepanciesinvolves him in what we typically refer to as the proc-ess of problem-solving. When there is no longer a dis-crepancy between the two states, between "what is"and "what is preferred," man has proven himself, bydefinition, to be a successful problem-solver.

To discover the conditions that characterize a partic-ular situation, man engages in a process that is usuallyidntified as inquiry.5 Sometimes, he inquires aboutthe actual conditions that characterize a situation orhis relationship to it. Other times, he inquires aboutthe preferred conditions that characterize the situationor his relationship to it. When the purpose of his inquiryis to discover actual conditions, he engages in designa-tive inquiry, and the product of his inquiry is a set ofdesignative statements that convey information aboutwhat is currently true, what was true in the past, orwhat is likely to be true in the future. On the otherhand, when the object of his inquiry is to discover pre-ferred conditions, he engages in appraisive inquiry.The product this time is a set of appraisive statementsthat, reflecting values and preferences, identify situations that either do or do not provide him with a senseof well-being, satisfaction, and pleasure.5 The following discussion of designative, appraisive, and prescrip-tive inquiry and messages is based upon the work of CharlesMonis, Signification and Significance (Cambridge, Mass.: TheM.I.T. Press, 1964). The relations among these activities are basedupon the work of Donald McKay; see, for instance, "Towards an In-formation Flow of Human Behavior," British Journal of Psychology(1958), 47: 30.43.

A Conceptual Overview 13

Any situation or relationship can legitimately be theobject of designative inquiry and the referent of desig-native messages or statements of fact. Simultaneously,it can be the object of appraisive inquiry and the refer-ent of appraisive messages or statements of prefer-ence. Coupling these two forms of inquiry with theearlier definition of a problem, man may be said tohave an actual or potential problem when his designa-tive inquiry and his appraisive inquiry are addressedto the same referent and when they yield incompatibleor discrepant messages. Viewed this way, problemscan be considered to be a very normal and naturalcharacteristic of life for any system. Moveover, it is pre-cisely man's ability to identify his problems, encodethem linguistically, and then develop solutions to themthat enables him to adapt successfully to the con-stantly changing conditions that characterize the com-plex world around him.

All of which suggests yet a third kind of inquiry inwhich man typically engages, one that takes its cuesfrom a discrepancy identified between "what is" and"what is preferred" and leads to the question "what todo?" For as he attempts to design a specific form of ac-tion for dealing with an identified discrepancy, manbegins to engage in prescriptive inquiry. Sometimesthe prescriptive statements that result involve adjust-ing his preferences; other times they suggest ways ofmodifying or manipulating the actual state of theworld; and on still other occasions, they suggest thatthe best course of action is simply to accommodate tothe discrepancy either because it is really not verycritical or because the discrepant conditions can beexpected to change at some future time.

Often, of course, while a particular form of actionmay reduce one discrepancy in question and therebycount as a solution to that particular problem, it mayalso influence other related conditions, perhaps to thepoint of creating new problems. If, therefore, man is to

14

be a successful probletnsolver, he must be able notonly to generate potential prescriptions, but also toanticipate or project their consequences for both theproblematic situation in question and for other relatedsituations as well.

In summary, each of us as human beings can beviewed as a fully integrated problem-solving system,continuously engaged in inquiry and in a search forinformation about (1) the "what is" state of ourselvesand the world around us, (2) the "what is preferred"state of those referents, and (3) "what to do" to reduceidentified discrepancies between the two. Viewed thisway, we as human beings are extremely complex sys-tems for collecting, storing, and processing designa-tive, appraisive, and prescriptive information aboutourselves, others, and the world in which we live.

Joint Inquiry for Joint Problem-Solving

Although man sometimes behaves as an autono-mous problem-solver, he most often finds it useful tojoin or couple himself with others at various stageu ofinquiry, in a mutual effort to identify and reduce impor-tant discrepancies between "what is" and "what is pre-f erred." This kind of joint inquiry almost always re-quires some form of external communication and thusthe development of a common or group "nervous sys-tem" for exchanging designative, appraisive, and pre-scriptive information. Just as an impaired nervous sys-tem seriously weakens the problem-solving skills of anindividual human being, impaired communicationamong individuals engaged in joint problem-solvingsignificantly reduces the potential effectiveness oftheir collaborative efforts. Thus, when human beingscome together in groups or organizations to solve prob-lems, both the content and the effectiveness of theircommunicative processes become critical.

With respect to the content of communication, eachmember of the group needs to know what problems


face the group. He needs to know which of these prob-lems have the highest priority for all group members.And, as he helps develop plans to solve particularproblems, he needs to know not only the plan itself andwhat it entails, but also that every other member ofthe group shares this information as well

Equally as important during a joint problem-solvingeffort as the content of communication among groupmembers is the effectiveness of their communication.Evaluating communicative effectiveness requires, ofcourse, some knowledge of the purposes and objec-tives that lie behind each communicative message.From one point of view, there are probably as many in-tentions for communicating as there are situations. Atthe same time, however, it seems reasonable to suggestthat there are at least these five basic "levels of com-municative contact," each with its own aim or objectiveand each logically prior to those that follow:

1, rtdeiity, the most basic lovel in tho hierarchy, is concernedprimarily with getting one's message into the "nervoussystem" of another; therefore, if the recipient of the messagecan repeat it verbatim, effective communicative contact hasbeen achieved at the level of fidelity.

2. Understanding, the next level of communicative contact,requires that the individuals involved havo a commonlanguagea common set of syntactic and semantic rulesor at least that their languages be clearly translatable. If"replication" is the key criterion at the level of fidelity,"meaning" is the key criterion at the level of understanding,and so paraphrasing becomes one of the most useful waysto test the effectiveness of communicative contact at thissecond level in the hierarchy.

3. Acceptance, the third level of communicative contact, in-volves a search for agreement or concurrence on the mes.sage, depending on the nature of the message. For example,acceptance of a designative assertion hinges on the ques-tion, "Do you agree that my assertion is a true descriptionof what is?" By contrast, the appropriate question for an

16

appraisive assertion Is, "Do you concur with my prefer-ence?" and for a prescription, "Do you agree that my pro-posed solution is likely to reduce the identified discrepancybetween 'what is' and 'what is preferred'?"

4. Relevance, the fourth level in the hierarchy, focuses on theimportance of the message to its recipient. It may be person-ally important to him. It may be important to some role hemust play in a group. Or it may be important to the groupas a whole. Any message, therefore, may be considered tobe relevant on any or all of these three dimensionsself,role, or group.

S. And commitment, the fifth level of communicative contact,shifts attention from the linguistic characteristics of the mes-sage to its behavioral implications for the recipient. That is,even though he may be able to repeat it, even though hemay understand and accept it, and even though he mayregard it as highly relevant, if the Ynessage fails to influencethe behavior of the recipient, communicative contact at thishighest hvel I' the hierarchy will not have been achieved:it will not 1:,,t e been translated from a linguistic messageto a behavioral manifestation.

When two or more individuals agree to engage injoint inquiry to solve a common problem, each of thesefive levels of communicative effectiveness becomesappropriate at different stages in the process as theymove from problem identification to plan developmentand, ultimately, to implementation and assessment ofresults.

The Process Itself: Logic and PsychologyThe classical treatment of problem-solving organ-

izes the process into several discrete steps or phases ofactivity. Typically, these steps are ordered logically,such that each can be taken only after its precedingstep has been properly executed. Accordingly, thelogic of problem-solving begins with identification ofthe problem; moves through a series of intermediatesteps designed to analyze the problem, assign priori-


ties to its parts, and zero in on its most important dimen-sions; and leads finally to the generation of alternativesolutions and selection of specific solutions, implemen-tation of the latter, and evaluation of results.

To speak of the psychology of problem-solving, how-ever, is to say that the actual experience of identifyingand working to solve problems is quite a different mat-ter, than that suggested by a purely logical dissectionof its prccesses. For example, the logic of problemsolving suggests the advisability of analyzing a partic-ular problem as completely and carefully as possiblebefore either proposing or attempting solutions to ItOn the other hand, the actual experience of solvingproblems indicates that solutions can frequently beattempted--and with beneficial effectslong beforea detailed analysis of the motivating problem has beencompleted. In fact, the effort to assess the possible con-sequences of a particular solution often produces newinformation that clarifies and broadens understandingof the basic problem for which a solution is sought.

The problem-solving process, therefore, is psycho-logically a highly recursive one in which the phases orsteps identified in its logical analysis may well bedone, re-done, and re-done still again as subsequentsteps generate new information and create a new needto return to preceding steps in the process. Viewed thisway, the process emerges as one of evolutionary, cycli-cal movement from relatively vague, imprecise, andincomplete formulations of a problem-statement to in-creasingly refined conceptions of the problem, andultimately, to some deliberate form of action to allevi-ate it.

Facilitation in Groups and Organizations

As suggested earlier, when two or more individualproblem-solving systems agree to organize themselvesinto groups for the purpose of identifying and solvingtheir common problems, they become a higher order

18

problem-solving system. As such, they must developthe capacity to deal effectively with two quite differentkinds of problems: some that can be identified as con-vening problems, and others that can be more usefullyidentified as emergent problems. A convening prob-lem, as the name implies, relates to the raison d'etre ofthe group, its reason for being convened, its basic goal-attainment problem. On the other hand, emergentproblems are those that evolve within the group itselfor between it and its environment as its members at-tempt to deal with their convening problems.

While the members of a group may have some corn-mon understanding of the problem which they havebeen convened to solve, they are likely to have verylittle advance information about the additional prob-lems that may emerge as they work to solve that con-vening problem. Lacking this information and, equallyimportant, lacking systematic techniques for dealingeffectively with most of their problemswhether con-vening or emergentindividual members of a groupmay well try to employ problem-solving strategies thatsimply exacerbate existing problems as well as createnew ones. Consequently, just as an individual must beable to track, analyze, and solve his own critical prob-lems if ho is to survive as a healthy and effective prob-lem-solving system, so too a group must be able todevelop and maintain a variety of techniques for man-aging its "nervous system"its own processes of in-terpersonal communicationas it engages in jointinquiry.

In particular, it must develop a way of exchangingdesignative, appraisive, and prescriptive messages. Itmust develop a way by which members can share in-formation about themselves and can assure each otherthat their understanding of the task, the conditionsbearing upon its accomplishment, and the nature oftheir coupling as a group is common to all other mem-bers. It must develop techniques for assessing, as a

A Concepitral Overview 19

total group, both the intended and actual levels of com-municative effectiveness characterizing its delibera-tions at any particular time. Perhaps most critical, itmust develop a way by which members can periodi-cally suspend their problem-solving activity, becomeobservers of the process rather than participants in it,and assess those characteristics of their interactionthat facilitate joint inquiry and those that do not.

None of these techniques for managing a group'snervous system has much value, however, if it is em-ployed unsystematically, or if it is unrelated to a real-time effort to engage in the problem-solving processitself. Group members must see that each step in theprocess requires particular kinds of communicativebehavior and excludes others. For instance, proposingsolutions to problems that have not been fully defined,evaluating contributions of members prematurely oron irrelevant grounds, or sharing opinions when thetask at hand is to generate facts--each of these exem-plifies a communicative behavior that can easily be-come a source of internal problems for a group and ahandicap to effective joint inquiry. To work effectivelytogether, all members of a group must have a sharedconception of the problem-solving process in whichthey are involved and so a common basis for critiquingand, where necessary, for modifying thf. process. Inthis sense, a shared conception of the problem-solvingprocess serves the members of a group the same waythat a contract serves those who are a party to it: itdefines for each individual what he and what othersare expected to do, as well as when and how they areexpected to do it.

This, then, is an overview of the concepts supportingthe DAP joint problem-solving processits view of thehuman being as a problem-solving system, the rela-tionship between joint inquiry and joint problem-solv-ing, the logic and the psychology of problem-solving,and its implications for groups and organizations.

CHAPTER 3

The Joint Problem-Solving Process

The DAP joint problem-solving process involvesthree phases of group interaction, the first two of whichare divided into a number of sequential activities.These phases and activities, each of which can bethought of as posing specific sub-problems for a groupto solve, are concerned principally with generatingand using various kinds of information for keeping agroup's nervous system in good working order. Wheneach sub-problem has been handled effectively, thegroup will have evolved, implemented, and assessed aplan for solvingor at least for coping witha particu-lar problem or set of related problems. What follows isa brief description of the three major phases of activityin the DAP joint problem-solving process.

Phase One Problem identificationThe activities included in Phase 1 of the DAP process

address themselves to the question, "What is the prob-lem?" They help the members of a group identify a setof possible problems, encode them in a particular for-mat as problem-statements, examine them for inter-personal understanding and acceptance, assess theirimportance, and then select the particular problem orcluster of related problems for which a solution will besought. More specifically, this first phase consists of thefollowing activities:

1.1 The Problem Survey. Group members begin by identifyingand sharing information about the problems that they person-

20

The Joint Probletn-Solving Process 21

ally have encountered or that they feel deserve the attentionof the group. That is, group members are asked to volunteerbrief statements about some feature, situation, or conditionwhich is related to the group's activities and which for themconstitutes a problem. The vehicle for this "tagging" opera-tion is a relatively formalized problem-statement consisting ofthree parts: (a) a referent or topic about which the problemis concerned; (b) a designative assertion about the current orpotential state of that referent; and (c) a comparable apprais-ive assertion about the proferred state of that same referent.To assure effective communicative contact at the level of fidel-ity, each of these individually generated problem-statementsIs recorded verbatim without discussion or argument, and thetotal array of problem-statements is publicly displayed for allgroup members to review.

1.2 Achieving Interpersonal Understanding. During this sec-ond activity, group members work to achieve maximum inter-personal understanding of the problem-statements generatedduring the problem survey. They do two things: first, they ob-tain from each member of the group an indication of his levelof understanding of each problem-statement on the list; andsecond, based upon a display of those ratings, they discuss,paraphrase, and revise each statement in an effort to achievethe highest possible level of interpersonal understandingamong all members of the group. The revised statements thenbecome a written record of the group's search for understand-ing. While it is virtually impossible to remove all grounds formisunderstanding, it is certainly possible to eliminate the un-necessary and disabling effects of having two or more mem-bers of a group assume uncritically that they understand oneanother.

1.3 Assessing interpersonal Acceptance. Once interpersonalunderstanding has been maximized, group members are readyto determine the degree to which each member accepts theproblem-statements that he presumably now understands."Acceptance" of the referent and its designative assertionmeans essentially that the group member has no reason todoubt the truth of the assertion regarding "what is." If he does,of course, now is his chance to raise questions, provide addi-tional evidence, and generally assist his colleagues in increas-

22

ing the accuracy of that assertion. With respect to the referentand its appraisive assertion, acceptance means either that thegroup member shares that preference or that he can at leasttolerate another group member's having that preference. If,however, the group member is totally unable to accept thepreference, he is encouraged to discuss his reasons, not for thepurpose of forcing others to accept his reasoning and his pref.erences, but in order to explain why he is unable to accept theparticular preference being expressed. Once again, a recordof each group member's degree of acceptance of eachproblem-statement provides data on the effectiveness of com-munication at this third level of communicative contact.

1.4 Judging Importance. During this fourth activity, groupmembers share information about the relevance or importanceof each problem-statement. That is, they individually assessthe importance of finding a solution to each problem, first interms of themselves, then in terms of their particular roles inthe organization, and finally in terms of the organization itself.Given these three different ratings of importance, group mem-bers can then re-order the list of revised problem-statementsfrom least to most important on any of the three dimensions.

1.5 Selecting a Problem for Group Attention. The product ofthe prior four activities in Phase I is a list of revised problem-statements, ordered in terms of importance and possibly clus-tared thematically on the basis of their substantive content.The final task in Phase 1, requires the group to use all informotion at hand to select the particular problem or cluster ofrelated problems that will receive the group's prescriptive at-tention in the second and third phase of the DAP process. Tothis point, communicative contact about the group's problem-statements has progressed from fidelity through understand-ing and acceptance to relevance. As group members deliber-ate now about which statements should be carried forwardinto Phase Two and given prescriptive attention, their com-munication addresses the question of commitment. This high-est level of communicative contact is probably the most &Hi-cult to achieve, for its linguistic messages have significant im-plications for the behavior of group members, behavior de-signed to maintain or produce some desirable state. At thispoint, then, words take form in action.

The Join! Problem-Solving Process 23

Generally speaking, Phase One of the DAP jointproblem-solving process represents a graded seri ©s ofactivities that are highly individualistic at the begin-nin4 and become increasingly consensual as groupmembers move first to the identification of commonproblems, and then to the decision to function cooper-atively to solve one or more of their common problems.

Phase Two: Plan DevelopmentPhase Two of the DAP process focuses on the joint

design of a plan or proposed solution to solve the prob-lem or cluster of problems selected for prescriptiveattention. Group members begin by creating a pool ofpossible actions that might be taken. Using this pool ofideas, they develop a small number of detailed plansand attempt to predict the likely consequence of eachif it were implemented, Finally, based on all availableinformation, the members of the group decide which ifany of their alternative plans they will actually imple-ment. Just as the five levels of communicative contactguided deliberations in Phase One with respect toproblem identification, so too they guide deliberationsduring Phase Two with respect to plan development,More specifically, the second phase of the DAP processconsists of the following activities:

2.1 tank/ Planning. Like the initial activity in. Phase One, thefirst activity in Phase Two is essentially a production task.This time, however, it involves group members in generatinga list of preliminary "do" statements, a list of potential pre-scriptions that, if opercrtionalisecl, are likely to reduce the "is-ought' discrepancies described in the group's selected prob-lem-statements. During this "brainstorming" activity, groupmembers cae encouraged to be innovative and creative, butthey are also cautioned to refrain from premature judgmentsregarding the feasibility, cost, or practicality of any of theactions that may be proposed.

2.2 Plan Design. With the list of preliminary "do" statementsbefore them, group members are then ready to "flesh-out" and

24

refine one or more detailed plans for coping with the identifiedproblem or cluster of problems. The product of this effort shouldbe complete descriptions and schedules of actions that mightbe taken, an indication of who will be responsible for each, alist of the non-human resources needed, an estimate of thelikely consequences and the time required for each plan toyield satisfactory results, and an indication of the specificcriteria and information that eventually would be used to de-termine the success of each potential plan.

2.3 Deciding to Implement. The final decision for the group tomake is whether or not it will actually implement any of thesealternative plans. Crucial to this decision is the individual com-mitment of group members to perform the behaviors called forby the plan, includingmost importantlythe coordinationof activities among all members of the group. Prior to decidingwhether or not to implement, therefore, it is criticd that groupmembers fully understand each of the alternative plans andthat they know the level of commitment of other members tothem. Naturally, if there is evidence of low or questionablelevels of group commitment to any one of the plans, attempt.ing to implement it may be an unwise and unproductive stepfor the group to take.

Phase Three: Implementation andAssessment of Results

The final phase of the DAP process calls for makingthe plan designed in Phase Two operational and formonitoring both its implementation and its results. Asthese two activities occur, two kinds of informationbecome important to the group. One of these is infor-mation regarding the accuracy with which the plan iscarried outthat is, the degree of "match" betweenthe plan as a symbolic representation of intended ac-tion and the actual activities of the persons involved.The second kind of information desired is that whichindicates the degree to which the specific actions takenduring implementation aid or hinder solution of theproblem or problems selected by the group for pre-

The Joint Problem-Solving Process 25

scriptive activity. In a Benne, then, the informationabout results becomes useful in conducting a summa-tive evalation of the group's total problem-solvingeffort.

In summary, the three phases of group activity in theDAP process, which take their cues from the conceptsdescribed briefly in Chapter 2, are designed to helpgroups and organizations function more effectivelyas fully integrated, self-corrective, problem-solvingsystems.

CHAPTER 4

A Survey of Pilot Session Participants

In the spring of 1973, staff members surveyed a num-ber of the teachers and administrators who had partic-ipated in the DAP pilot-test situations between 1969and 1972. The chapter presents a summary of the sur-vey findings, including an indication of some post-ses-sion uses of DAP and some representative commentsoffered by survey participants.

A Description of the Survey

The survey consisted of both interviews and mailedrequests for information. A total of seventy-four indi-viduals were interviewed, representing seven of thetwelve pilot-test situations, each of which has beennoted in Table A of Chapter 1. Visits were made to nineschools in Tennessee, six in Oregon, and one in BritishColumbia. Letters were mailed to an additional thir-teen participants of the last, most thorough pilot-testtraining session. In sum, a total of eighty-seven teach-ers and administrators were invited to participate inthe survey; all but nine did so.

Regardless of whether they were personally inter-viewed or sent a mailed questionnaire, participants inthe survey were reminded of the DAP sessions theyhad attended and were informed that the project wasbeing phased out. Because each DAP pilot-test sessionhad been somewhat different, given the continuing6 This survey of participants in seven of the twelve DAP pilot-testswas conducted by James Ba !demon.

26

A Survey of Pilot Session Participants 27

development and revision of the DAP concepts, proce-dures, and materials, no attempt was made to see ifrespondents could recall the specific concepts or proc-esses that had been presented to them. They werequestioned, however, to determine, first, if they or theircolleagues had made any use of the data generatedduring the DAP sessions and, second, if they had at-tempted to use or modify any portion of DAP in theirsubsequent work in or with groups.

A Summary of Findings

Many of the respondents expressed favorable com-ments about the value of DAP and their experiencewith it. Likewise, some expressed a desire and willing-nes.s to undertake further training in the process. Sev-eral of those who viewed the DAP process most posi-tively expressed disappointment that further develop-mental work had been curtailed.

Comments favorable to DAP centered around theutility of the process in (1) dealing with real problemscurrently affecting the participants in their organiza-tions; (2) opening-up and promoting problem-relateddiscussion among participants representing differentlevels and roles in an organization; and (3) making thetransfer from a workshop setting to the day-to-daywork carried out in a school. In addition, the DAP con-cepts and processes were seen by both administratorsand teachers as a useful, non-threatening way to pre-pare for change.

These relatively favorable comments must be bal-anced, however, by other observations. No formaladoption and regular use of the DAP process was men-Honed by any of the participants contactedalthough,as indicated below, some parts of DAP were adaptedand by some participants to meet special needs.Furthermore, there was no clear indication that theproblems identified during pilot-test sessions had ever

28

been followed-up in any systematic way, either by theteachers or by the administrators involved in the ses-sions. On this point, several participants remarked thattheir attempts to identify and formulate importantproblems during the DAP workshop had led them toexpect that appropriate organizational changes wouldbe taken to alleviate the problems, and that they there-fore, had been rather disappointed by the lack of sub-sequent action on the part of either teachers or admin-istrators. One remark by a respondent about his exper-ience with DAP seemed to characterize many of theparticipants surveyed: It was most unrealistic to ex-pect, as many of his colleagues apparently did, thatDAP would be a "magic: formula" that could be used toovercome basic disagreement among some staff mem-bers on the values they held.

Some Post-Session Uses of DAP

Respondents did report the following post-sessionuses of DAPits concepts and its related group proce-dures for identifying and solving problems:

1. To determine preferred operating conditions for alarge, new high school. A Program Committee, consist -ing of school district administrators and lay representatives, used procedures based on the DAP problem iden-tification technique to formulate a ten-point guide forthe functioning of a new high school. Working from aset of designative statements about schools and a cornparable set of appraisive statementsboth developedby individual committee membersthe Program Com-mittee was able as a group to develop an overall state-ment of the operating conditions that the administra-tion and staff of the school should endeavor to create.Specific prescriptions for bringing about the preferredconditions were left, however, to the building's profes-sional personnel.

2. To formulate job descriptions. Personnel in the


Department of Instruction of a large suburban schooldistrict used modified DAP procedures to identify im-portant operating problems that arose during the re-organization of central office staff. The problems iden-tified provided a valuable guide for the formal revisionof job descriptions within the department. An assistantsuperintendent in the department reported that theDAP procedures "facilitated honest dialogue on a highprofessional plane" and provided "an excellent formatwithin which to identify and discuss problems."

3. To design new reporting procedures. The staff ofan elementary school used the DAP procedures to de-termine preferences for a new system of reporting toparents on tl,e academic development and learningproblems of their children. To the extent feasible, theschool's actual reporting procedures were then alteredto conform with the identified preferences.

4. To improve communication among members of ateaching team. Members of three teaching teams re-ported having used variations of the DAP process topromote more effective communication about the criti-cal problems facing the teams. One team leader re-ported that "the levels of communicative contact" hadbeen very useful to his team and that it had become"common" for members of his team to suggest, "Let'swork a DAP on this item" whenever they seemed to beexperiencing a communication problem.

5. To obtain information for planning a new schoolfacility. One administrator indicated that, in prepara-tion for working with architects who were designing anew building in the district, he planned to use a modi-fied version of the DAP processes to determine the ar-chitectural preferences of the various individuals whowould be using the building's various work areas.

6. To develop a statement of ,:,chool philosophy,goals, and objectives. Portions of the DAP process were

30

used by a "faculty committee of a large secondaryschool to derive data from the school's staff, adminis-trators, student body and its community of parents per-taining to desired school goals and objectives. Thesedata were then used as a base for the inferential de-velopment of a statement of school philosophy.

Representative Comments

The following brief notations and comments are arepresentative sample of those received during thesurvey:

A principal who spoke highly of DAP and had recently par-ticipated in a DAP workshop with his staff indicated thatneither he nor his staff had attempted to use the DAP pro-cedures during a major reorganization of curriculum; in-

stead, as he put it they had "managed quite well" by the"usual muddling-through."

A teacher reported that she used a "simplified DAP" withher class of primary pupils to identify playground behaviorproblems and to work out ways of solving them.

A secondary principal expressed his desire to train mem-bers of his staff so that they could use DAP to improvestudents' problem-solving and decision-making skills.

A teacher expressed the need for a trained DAP consultantat the building level if the procedures were to become partof a school's regular, formal approach to problem-solving.

A leader of a teaching team for grades five and six reportedusing the "full cycle a couple of times' to deal with problemsrelcrted to pupils and team interaction. He reported the pro-cess was "very helpful in getting it all out." He also indi-cated, however, that because DAP is a "fairly drawn-outprocess," some of his teachers did not want "to go throughit all." He also thought the process was "far too long anddrawn out for students to use."

A principal reported that he did not use DAP in staff meet-Ingo because it "took too long to get anywhere;" at the same


time, however, he saw value in the process because "it getseveryone to work on the problemnot only the one withnerve enough to talk."

A superintendent reported that the DAP workshop his staffhad attended "was instrumental in bringing about somemajor changes." Exactly which changes were made be-cause of DAP were not specified, but he felt many "inci-dental and tangential spin-offs of the workshop" had madeit well worthwhile. This superintendent and two of his prin-cipals pressed the point that the DAP workshop's valuestemmed from the ability of DAP to involve various mem-bers of the organization in identifying and analyzing "reallive" problems. They specifically mentioned the superiorityof the DAP workshop in comparison with two other stafftraining sessions they had undertaken which were not ori-ented to immediate and pressing problems, but rather to"sensitivity and awareness."

A principal stated that, although DAP provided a great dealof staff input, "final decision-making remained, unmans,and will remain with management."

A principal commented on the therapeutic effect of DAP inthat things that initially seemed a problem were cleared upbecause of DAP's technique of first establishing a clear andcommon understanding of the problem or problems underdiscussion.

Many participants mentioned their difficulty in remember-ing the "technical terns' and suggested that the developersshould "stick to common language."

A teacher likened DAP to "participatorymanagement tech-niques" in which "the staff feeds in data, but managementdecides." This remark was qualified somewhat by an addl.donut comment that DAP "seemed to be a way to feed-ininformation without threat or intimidation."A principal stated, "We heard things as administrators thatthe staff had never told us before."

A principal reported that when he "attempted to apply thecomplete process, the) found group members 'cool' towardsthe details."

32

A university department head reported, "The problem istime . . . It takes time to utilize the democratic methods ofDAP, and time is a commodity which is in extremely shortsupply these days."

In conclusion, this informal, follow-up survey wasdesigned to discover howif at allthe DAP proc-esses and its products had been useful to individualsparticipating in DAP pilot-test sessions between 1969and 1972. The results are clearly mixed. If any generalconclusion can be drawn, it is that DAP has yet to beproved either as a generally applicable process foridentifying and solving problems, or as one that canand will be readily adopted by personnel in schools.This conclusion merely echoes, of course, the caution-ary note expressed at the end of Chapter 1. Because theDAP concepts and its related operations have not yetbeen fully tested, their promising potential clearly re-mains to be further explored and developed.

CHAPTER 5

Reflections on DAP and Its Potential'

In his initial work on the subject, Norbert Wiener de-fined cybernetics as "the science of control and com-munication, in the animal and in the machine."8 At theheart of cybernetics, therefore, is the notion of "steers-manship" or helmsmanship in goal-directed systems.To a considerable extent, the DAP joint problem-solv-ing process, both its underlying conception and its ac-companying procedures, represent an effort to applythese same notions of "steersmcmship" to the work ofhuman groups and organizations. We have tried toview the essential task of any system as one of adap-tation, which in turn requires the identification, moni-toring, and solving of particular kinds of problems inparticular ways.

At the same time, we have tried to highlight the re-cursiveness of the problem-solving process--its cyclesof identifying problems, developing and implementingplans, and evaluating solutionsand the distinctionbetween the psychology and the logic of problem-solving. This distinction is essentially the same as thatwhich is often drawn by philosophers between the con-text of discovery and the context of verification. Thebusiness of discovering problems and developing solu-

? Most of the ideas presented in this chapter have been adaptedfrom a series of notes prepared by F. Lee Brissey for project staffIn ranuary 1972.Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press,

1948).

33

34

tions tends to occur inductively in the context of discov-ery; the business of testing solutions tends to occur de-ductively in the context of verification. Just as philoso-phers stress the impossibility of capturing the inductiveprocess in rules of logic, so too wo have avoided tryingto construct a specific set of rules that capture the com-plex processes of generating and selecting informationfor problem-solving. Instead, we have tried to design aproblem-solving process that capitalizes on the crea-tivity of group members, but also forces them to applythe usual scientific rules of validation whenever theyattempt to implement and evaluate solutions.

Between 1969 and 1972, as we developed, tested, re-fined, and re-tested the DAP concepts, procedures, andmaterials, we tended to think of DAP in its totality as away of helping groups identify and solve their mostcritical common problems. Toward the end of the de-velopmental process, however, we began to see thatthe DAP concepts and procedures could be adapted toserve a number of purposes other than pure problem-solving. Despite the fact that DAP has not been fullytested, it does seem useful and reasonable to describebriefly some of those other potential uses. Some areprimarily proscriptive in nature, in that they serve tosolve some particular problem; others are related moreto designative inquiry and to generating informationabout "what is." Common to all, however, is the funda-mental DAP conception of human beings, communica-tions, joint inquiry, and the problem-solving process.Included among these potential uses are the following:

1. Locating and defining organizational goals. Or-ganizations typically and frequently need to articulatetheir goals or, at a more abstract level, the philosophythat motivates their activities. This task certainly is, orat least should be, uppermost in the minds of those con-cerned with organizational management, if not withall who are involved in the organization. With someadaptation, Phase One of the DAP process, the set of

Reflections on DAP and Its Potential 35

procedures for identifying problems, can be used toassist an organization in formulating its philosophyand goals. The usual approach to this task moves de-ductively from very abstract, non-operational, andnon-extensionalized descriptions of some desired endto statements which, presumably at least, can be madeincreasingly specific and operational. By contrast, theDAP process starts with as many instances as possibleof specific problems encountered by individuals in theorganization. When these instances have been proc-essed for understanding, acceptance, and relevance,they become the raw datathat is, the specific state-ments of preference for particular characteristics, com-ponents, or activities in the organizationfrom whichgoals can be inductively rather than deductivelydefined.

2. Increasing interorganizational communication.By virtue of its basic conception, the DAP joint problem-solving process requires that the members of a groupor organization talk with one another at length abouttheir perceptions of organizational reality on the onehand and their preferences for that reality on the other,Some members of the organizations in which DAP hasbeen pilot-tested have observed that, whatever elsemay have been accomplished, their involvement in theprocess resulted in a significant increase in the amountof lateral and vertical communication within the or-ganization. Some remarked, for instance, that DAP hadprovided them with the first real opportunity they hadever had to sit together and discuss the nature of theirorganization and their individual and collective ex-periences as members of it. Whether this increase incommunicative traffic makes any real difference in agroup's day-to-day functioning remains, of course, tobe seen.

3. Improving interorganizational communications.Since the DAP model is based upon a particular viewof interpersonal communication, the DAP procedures

36

themselves can be employed by a group simply to enhance its members' understanding of communicationand their skills in managing the five levels of commu-nicative contact. There is, after all, a significant differ-ence between hearing what a fellow group memberhas said, understanding his message, agreeing with it,and regarding it as somehow important to oneself andothers. Independent of its aid as a set of proceduresfor group problem-solving, therefore, the DAP processcan provide group members with the language andskills necessary for handling and critiquing their ef-forts to engage in effective communication at each ofthe five levels of communicative contact.

4. Identification of client needs. To a large extent,schools, hospitals, and other social agencies can bethought of as service organizations, for they exist tomeet the needs of some particular client population.It seems critical, therefore, that these needs be morethan a matter of conjecture, speculation, or unverifiedinference. Phase One of the DAP process, the proce-dures for identifying group problems, can well be usedby practitioners in a service organization to involveclients in identifying their most critical needsneedsthat can then be used as a basis for designing andimplementing specific programs of activities.

5. Exposure of students to techniques. If the DAP'concepts and procedures can be useful for adults whofunction in organizations and groups, they should beequally useful to young people who find themselvesjust as often, if not more so, in groups and organiza-tions. For example, the process can be introduced tostudents as an opportunity to explore and practicesome of the critical techniques of group problem-solv-ing and interpersonal communication; or they can beused as a vehicle and format for studying and sharinginformation about current social problems in theschool, community, and nation.

Reflections on DAP and Its Potential 37

6. Providing organizations with useful techniques.Any administrator has an important responsibility tounderstand the problems encountered by his subordi-nates, to facilitate development of appropriate solu-tions to those problems, and to communicate the resultsto others. Too often, however, an administrator haslittle more than casual observations, anecdotes, orhighly formal reports from which to discern problemsnone of which provide him with very systematic,valid, or reliable "snapshots" of his group or organiza-tion. More often than not, he simply lacks a systematicway to poll the views of others on critical issues. PhaseOne of DAP may be of help to him, for it can provideall members of a group or organization with a commonview and language for identifying and solving prob-lems, a legitimate opportunity and a specific way of en-gaging in organizational self-reflexive inquiry about"what is" and "what is preferred" in the organization,while at the same time encouraging and preservingthe integrity of each individual voice. By engagingperiodically in the Phase One problem identificationprocedures, organizational members can periodicallyassess any changes that may have occurred in theirorganization's "problem profile."

7. Conducting of inquiries into problems, goals, andsolutions. This special kind of designative inquiry,again conducted by means of Phase One of the DAPprocess, involves the collection and analysis of infor-mation about the problems identified in different or-ganizations or by different individuals in the same or-ganization in an effort to identify patterns in thoseproblem& For example, one may be interested in com-paring the kinds of problems faced by individuals inthe same or different organizations, in the same or dif-ferent roles in comparable organizations, in the sameor different professions, or in the same or differentregions of a state or nation. He may be interested in

38

determining how the "problem profiles" for perxticularorganizations change over time or in studying the hom-ogeneity of objectives identified by different individ-uals in the same or different organizations. Or, on anentirely different dimension, he may be interested instudying the kinds of solutions posed by variousgroups to particular problems, and the eventual out-come of those solutions. Regardless of the specificfocus of this designative inquiry, the DAP view of whatconstitutes a problem and its three major phases ofproblem-solving activity can provide any investigatorwtih a relatively simple set of concepts and proceduresfor collecting comparative information about the prob-lems and solutions identified by different members indifferent groups and organizations.

In sum, there are clearly a variety of potential usesof the DAP concepts and operations. Each needs to becarefully considered, however, in light of particulargroup needs. Hopefully, this report will encourageothers interested in group problem-solving to utilize theDAP concepts and procedures and to develop themfurther. To the extent that this occurs, the past fewyears of developing, testing, and refining DAP willhave been well worth the effort.

A Selected Bibliography Relevant to Systems Theory,Human Communication, and Group ProblemSolving

Ashby, W. R. Design for a Brain. New York: Wiley, 1952.Ashby, W. R. An Introduction to Cybernetics. New York: Wiley,

1966.

Bronowski, Jacob. The Identity of Man. Garden City, New York:The Natural History Press, 1966.

Buckley, Walter, ed. Modern Systems Research for the BehavioralScientist: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1968.

Campbell, James H. and Hep ler, Hal W., eds. Dimensions in Com-munication: Readings. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publish-ing Company, 1965.

Cathcart, Robert S. and Samovar, Larry A., eds. Small Group Com-munication: A Reader. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1970.

Cherry, Colin. On Human Communication. Second edition. Cam-bridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966.

Churchman, C. W. The Systems Approach. New York: Delacorte,19".8.

Churchman, C. W. The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Con.cepts and Organizations. New York: Basic Books, 1971.

Emery, F. E. Systems Thinking. Harrnondsworth, Middlesex, Eng-land: Penguin Books, 1969.

Gregory, Carl E. The Management of Intelligence. New York Mc-Graw-Hill, 1967.

Mcder, N. R. F. Problem Solving and Creativity in individuals andGroups. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole, 1970.

Morris, Charles W. Signification and Significance. Cambridge,Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1964.

Newell, Allen, Simon, H. A. Human Problem Solving. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Reitman, W. R. Cognition and Thought. New York: Wiley, 1965.Schein, Edgar H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall, 1965.von Foerster, Heinz, et al., eds. Purposive Systems. New York:

Spartan Books, 1968.Wiener, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics

and Society. Now York: Houghton Mifflin, 1950.

39

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 089 449 · ed 089 449. author title. institution spons agency bureau no pub date...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME ED 089 449 · ed 089 449. author title. institution spons agency bureau no pub date...