This chapter proposes that individuals must act within collective groups to address the broad range of problems facing them, as opposed to waiting for governmental bodies to tackle these problems. Informed citizens can form problem solving groups,whichtake a proactive approach to addressing community priorities and in turn create newbodies of knowledge and expertise (Cetina, 1999). These new groupscould be a block of families, a small town or region, or an online communityof individuals across cities, countries, or geographic regions who apply their collective creativity to directly tackling problems of common interest (Meindl, Stubbart, & Porac, 1996).
The Range of Human Problems
The cognitive research community has characterized problems as well-defined and solvable, ill-defined and resistant to solution, and wicked problemsthat appear to be intractable (Churchman, 1967). Many problems that face families and communitiescould be characterized as ill-defined given their complexity and variability. Alternatively, this chapter uses three categories, routine, survival, and change,to cover the continuum of problems facing communities(Shambaugh, 2008).
The simplest category of problems facing middle-class families and communities can be labeled as routine,which occur throughout daily activities includingjobs, family life, health and safety, education, entertainment, and well-being. Responsibilities for living in the21st century have increased as a result of a continual and natural human demand for goods and services. “Getting and spending has been the most passionate, and often the most imaginative, endeavor of modern life” (Twitchell, 2003, p. 191). Individualsnow must make many importantdecisions related to their personal and professionallives. Increasing numbers of middle-class familiesfrom around the worldare pressing the planet’s resources to meet these concerns. Governmental unitsand business organizations find themselves unable to provide many costly services and benefits to their citizens and customers (Zakaria, 2008).While governments, institutions, and organizationswill continue to serve important functions, individualsand groups have already begun to mobilize actionto provide their own welfare (Stanfield, 2000).
A second category can be labeled as survival problems, because of their scope, severity, and unpredictability. The citizens of the world are facing pressing, messy, and potentially disastrous problemsincluding disease and pandemics, natural disasters,and terrorism. In cases of floods, forexample, people cannot wait for assistance. Theymust act.What are common citizensto do when faced with problems such as run-away diseases, destroyed communities from earthquakes or floods, or bombings from well-funded terror cells? How can people’s innate abilities, collective creativity, and technological developments be leveraged to address such intractable problems?
A third category of problems, change problems, can sometimes be viewed as impossible because of their complexity over the long-term. Examples include geophysical changes impacting the Earth, such as climate change, rising oceans, and drought. Another set of examples includes societal changes in ethnocentrism, xenophobia, morality, governmental structure, geography, and technology. Change problems will require humankind to adapt to changing conditions.
Withthe prospect of routine, survival threats and long-term change,informed groups of citizens can initiate proactivepriorities in their national, state, and local governments as well as influence businessto collectively face these potential problems.Consumers also have the power to influence innovation which extends past the immediate needs of entertainment,self-expression, and Internet browsing toaddress community needs for health care, nutrition, counseling, housing, and education.Given citizens growing accustomed to services for routine and severe events, how will humans take responsibility for these needs? Is it possible for citizens, groups, neighborhoods, and communitiesto design a future in the present?
Human Attributes to Solve Problems
Despite therangeand complexity of issues, humans possess the social and physical capacity to address these problems.
Human societies. Historically, communities managed communal needs. The tools and skills have changed over timeand some of our communal needs are still tackled by family members, while others have been assigned or abdicated by voters to governmental units (McKnight, 2012). The functions of managing, planning, and coordination that family or communal members used to accomplishare now less fulfilled by the governmental staff worker.Human problems are not so much solved as studied (Nadler & Hibino, 1998).
Our propensity to live in groups and communities implies a human-readiness to collaboratein the face of routine, survival, and changeproblems. Cultural norms sometimes dictate thereadiness or expectations to participate in rituals andevents. Within community and professional learning communities and workgroups collective creativity can be tapped. According to Hargadon and Bechky (2006), “Collective creativity reflects a qualitative shift in the nature of the creative process, as the comprehension of a problematic situation and the generation of creative solutions draw from – and reframe – the past experiences of participants in ways that lead to new and valuable insights.” (p. 484).
Humans have the capacity to plan for the future ratherthan just reacting, although a future-orientation is difficultto comprehend, requires time and resourcesthat cannot promise a solution. Humans tend to focuson routineproblemsand less so on the long-term problems (e.g., financial planning, healthy living and healthcare). Within social structures, ranging from ad hoc neighborhood groups to professional learning communities, humans have the ability to communicateusing conversation, debate, and dialogueto collectively address common issues. In addition to language, the human abilities to problem solve, mentally represent ideas, reflect on their actions and imagine situationscan be usedto social advantage.
Problem solving.Fortunately, humanspossess unique problem solving tools as wellas technological tools. Deep expertise and understandingrequires time to develop, frequently citedas a deliberate practice of ten years (Ericsson, 1996). There are, however,some problems, which require immediate attention. Bruer (1993) used the term “intelligent novice” to describe those whocan control and monitor their thought processes andmake use of general strategies when necessary, even with information that is incomplete, redundant, ambiguous, and even incorrect (Lauriere, 1990).Two additional attributes to intelligent novices are thatthey may be intensely motivated, for example, to find a cure for the disease in a relative and that they dedicate the time andresources to stay on task (e.g.,Weiner, 2004).
Even with everyday problems, humans possess an array of innate tools. Some are rational approaches,including formal processes, systems, and thinking.Some approaches are non-rational, such as folk theoryand tradition, common sense, and heuristics.Humans sometimes blend the rational and non-rationalwhen they consciously talk through options, suchas in town hall meetings and focus groups. In the case of voting,for example, some people make carefullyconsidered options while for others a choice is basedon beliefs or perceptions, and nodeliberation is needed.Humans tap whatever knowledge and skills they have in the moment. Simon’s (1996) idea of satisficing characterizes thehuman ability to make decisions with existing resources and experience. Satisficing occurs when playing games,solving problems, and making financial decisions.Designers also “satisfice” when they make decisionsbased on what information they can gather in thetime available.
Mental representation.All humans have a unique ability to represent everyday problemsusing mental models, gestalt pictures, iconic images,diagrams, and metaphors and analogies.Mental models are internal constructions that formthe basis for our understanding of how things work,such as electricity (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Gestalt pictures depict visually an idea or issue in away that words cannot capture. Variations to Gestalt picturesinclude iconic images that provide a simplerepresentation of a company through a logo and signsystem, or internationally understood traffic signs.Diagrams, meanwhile, provide a tool torepresent complex representations in terms of analysis (e.g., picture glossaries, scalediagrams), synthesis (e.g., cutawaysand cross sections), and mapping using graphs, time lines, maps, tables,and graphic design (Moline, 1995). Analogies and metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980) are perhaps the most powerful means to communicate and perhaps to problem solve with (Gentner et al, 2001; Fauconnier & Turner, 2002)). Analogies arefigures of speech, which suggest that something islike something (e.g., life is like an adventure), whilea metaphor for life could be a ship. An analogy is anexplicit verbal (written or spoken) connectionbetween one thing and another, while a metaphor isa visual representation of that connection.
Metacognition and imagination. Humans have anability to think about how theythink, to make judgments on this process, and tomake changes, a key ability to self-improve, as well as design alternatives and to difficult, impossible problems. While metacognition isthe idea that we can think about how we have thoughtin the past, imagination may be meta-thinking set inthe future. Going beyond what we can physically see, toenvision possibilities, some of which may be fancifuland based not on information but on desire, is anexemplary human ability and maybe critical to facing change problems in particular. Imaginationcould be the one strength and the one directionthat informs the motivation of citizens to tackle impossibleproblems as well as suggest new paths tosolving them. The human capacity for curiosity, metaphoric imagination, and creative collaboration may help to discover options that escape the expert (Shambaugh, 2008). Humans possess veryunique and powerful mechanisms to understand theworld, the most important of which is language, theability to communicate thoughts, feelings, and actionsto others through various modes of conversation and dialogue. Humans are also aware and reflective of their metacognitive abilities to think about creative options.
In summary, the human attributes of social settings, problem solving, mental representation, metacognition and imagination enable people to tackle a range of problems from routine to survival and even change problems. The aim ofthis chapteris to encourage thinking by citizens,experts, and policy-makers to collectively design inthe present what a future world will look like and to tackle problems of concern rather than default to experts and government.
Community Problem Solving
Communities can become more proactive in terms of solving their own problems using community problem-solving groups, community-centered decision support systems, and community portals. These three approaches integrate the human problem solving potentials with the technologies of information, communication, and decision-making.
Approach 1: Community and personal information problem solving groups.Problem solving by community members can be better understood by examining three general purposes for problem solving; namely, advocacy, education, and collaboration.
Problems of advocacy, for example, can involve elderlyand retired persons on retirement and healthcare information. Families and community members can already tap the resources of nonprofitorganizations (e.g., for Graves Disease or migraines However, there will be a need and motivation for more proactive approaches by family members who seek more than information but have a direct hand in making decisions. Advocate needs may be short-term, addressing missing children,disaster relief, fund-raising, and annual event promotion, while long-term advocacy addresses healthcare and quality of life issues.
Community members may choose to bypass traditional educationalstructures, which they view as too expensive, too complicated, and not responsive to changing occupational realities. Educational needs may become more than formal degree programs, but involve a menu of self-development options and home schooling options. Communities as well as individuals may determine that they want to develop local sources of expertise without the need for formal degrees, but means of certification that are accepted as evidence of proficiency and competence.
Needs for collaboration certainly can overlap with advocacyand education, but a key feature is that they directly involvepeople who self-organize for specific short-term or long-term purposes. Collaborative partners may be scattered across the world and there will be needs for systems and practices to structure review the work-in-progress, and archive the lessons-learned. Community needs are about the needs of people, not the needs of any organization or institution.
Approach 2: Community decision support system (CDSS). While citizens possess mobile devices, computers, and the Internet for information, the tools for problem solving have remained in the hands of government and business. Tools referred to as decision support systems (DSS) are integrated computer-based systems that feature databases, aproblem-solving engine, and an interface to a humanuser. Early purposes for a DSS focused on a discrete task or decision and use existing data (Rockart &Bullen, 1986).
The focus for a Community DESS (CDSS) will also include historical data and information but would be future-oriented. The focus of individuals is rarely on thepast but on the present and the near future. Althoughthe future cannot be predicted, trends based on pastand current data provide a picture of where we arein our business, career, or personal life. Making decisionson what we want our life to be for ourselves,our families, and our communities, and even “whatbusiness are we in?” necessitate a different view. The idea of a CDSS does not limit itself to individuals but are extended to helping people in communities,neighborhoods, and cities grow (Longworth, 2006).
CDSS would involve both individualand social needs, and thus would be hybridversions of several DSS types (Powers, 2007). As with traditional DSS, the major systems of a CDSS include databases,reasoning models, interface, and communication options.In terms of acquiring information, databases provide a repository for information within any DSS. A CDSS would combinelocal databases. The integration challenge would be initially coping with inconsistent database structures. In the long term some standardizationof database structure would be required to develop an integrated database, although community-based DSS shells might be developed. A CDSS would use information and data to address specialized needs, such as healthcare, insurance, career options, and travel planning,among others. The CDSS would consist of both localized(personal computer system, mobile devices) resources and distributed (online websites and cloud storage) sources where information is stored andprocessed at other sites.
A model based is used to process this information.Modeling allows knowledge to be applied acrossproblems and facilitates analysis, explanations, andadvocacy (Druzdzel & Flynn, 2000). A model basewould include one or more models or representationsof community expertise ranging from highly specialized (e.g.,resale home value) to more general (e.g., model of alearner). Generic versions of a CDSS might includea range of common model components for financial,employment, travel, and health needs and providesimulations to help users see the implications ofdecisions. Integrating model bases, as with databases,will require some standardization of model structurealong some common categories. Personal patterns ofreasoning may also be archived to provide speed andoptions for new problems and additions to the model base.
Human dialogue with databases and model bases has used a visual interface, which has typically featureda desktop metaphor. To date users have relied on themetaphor presented to them on laptops and mobile devices.Specialized interfaces could be used depending on theproblem type (routine, survival, change) to facilitatequeries and decision-making. Survival needs require that a user notbe presented with too many choices, but rather accurateoptions to meet an immediate need. These just-in-timevisual views present just the information and advice asneeded (Lieberman, 2002).
The dissemination function of a DSS, involving the communication and sharing of information and decision optionswith others, represents a critical system component of aCDSS. While routine problems relate to an individual,problems of survival and change require collaboration and multi-point sharing of information facilitates decision-making. Wirelessmay become an antiquated term as it becomes transparentand common in device use. Information can be posted foreveryone or particular audiences and can be edited orlinked to other sources.
Approach 3: Community portals. The CDSS would be connected to a human-focused front-end known as a portal. A portal provides a centralized gateway to resources as well as decision-support. Today’s organizational versions are organized by top-down institutional needs and are based on explicit rules for “success,” such as increasing profits and reducing costs, as well as marketing functions such as accessing new customers and improving user experience. In addition, internal portals help to manage structured data (i.e., databases and digital files).
Portal development for communities can adopt the features of today’s organizational portals and provide gateways, as contentproviders or search engines, to Internet-based content. Someportals could openly solicit customers for information to aid the user in determining problem options. Currently databaseand data-mining technologies develop customerprofiles of purchases and preferences and online customer sites recommend products and services. Such technologies can also be used to examine user input and suggest options, not for entertainment, electronics, or travel but for information sources and decision options for a range of routine problems facing the user.
Portals provide colleges and universities with a means to attract specialty students, such as military veterans and adult learners. Traditional colleges and universities directlyexperienced competition for student enrollment and tuitiondollars from for-profit educational organizations, as well asfrom colleges that obtained university status and began tooffer a broader range of degree programs.Higher education portals have produced some cost savingsas an e-business strategy incorporating administrativeand instructional functions (Jafari & Sheehan,2003). These portals allow individuals in higher educationinstitutions to communicate with a broad range of constituents,including new students, parents, alumni, donors,and sports enthusiasts. Internally, educational Web portalsembrace many areas, such as training, staff and student services,transactions, grant and development activity, learningcommunities, and risk and compliance needs (Burrell, 2000).Thus, Web portals for educational institutions may become adestination for human activity, rather than as a reference siteof information.