In our first semester we learned about issue trees in MP and event trees in DDA and how they help break-down problem statements into solvable nuggets. In addition to these trees, here are three more analytical frameworks to breakdown problems:

• Means-ends networks: The initial problem statement is broken down by identifying all the obstacles that hinder reaching the goal. Then develop an action to get past this obstacle and in turn identify new obstacles that would thwart this plan. When all of these levels’ impediments are addressed, the overall problem statement should be solved.¹

• Objective hierarchy: Another hierarchical structure where a broad objective is developed out of the problem statement at the highest level. This objective is broken down into narrower objectives. As the objectives get narrower they take the form of actions, therefore they are called ‘means objectives’.²

Consequence tables: This structure is useful in comparing multiple options. List the multiple alternatives on one axis of the table and attributes to compare on the other axis. Give each alternative a rating for each attribute (the rating being relative to that of the other alternatives). Color coding the ratings based on different thresholds visually helps in comparing the alternatives.³

Looking back at our past two MP project I feel as though a means-end network would have been very beneficial (in addition to the issue trees we developed). There were several obstacles in both the Carlos Museum and Delta projects that needed to be sorted out and solved at a basic level.

Sources:

1. http://www.bcp.psych.ualberta.ca/~mike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/M/meansends.html
2. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/fire_science/craft/craft/Four_stages/Objectives/Objectives_hierarchy_tutorial.htm
3. http://www.structureddecisionmaking.org/steps/step4consequences/consequences2/