Problem Solving Stages (Based on analogy between the problem solving and design processes

1. Problem Specification or Definition: This stage consists of defining the problem you face from different standpoints or frames. Carefully defining your problem is an essential step to designing effective and ethical solutions. Defining your problem from multiple frames or vantage points, also helps you to create imaginative and ethical solutions to problems that appear unsolvable under commonplace framings.
2. Solution Generation: In this stage, you will try to resolve the problem you defined in the previous stage. In a section below, you will find a list of generic solutions to disagreements between stakeholders.
3. Solution Testing: The solutions developed in the second stage must be tested in different ways. The reversibility test encapsulates the ethical theory of deontology; exploring the issue from the standpoint of those on the receiving end of your action outlines the idea of reciprocity which is fundamental to deontology. The harm/benefits test has you weigh benefits against harms and steers you toward that solution that produces the most benefits and the least harms. This provides a reasonable approximation to the theory of Utilitarianism which enjoins us to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Finally, the publicity test has you attribute the values embedded in the act to the character of the agent. in this way, the publicity test encapsulates virtue ethics.
4. Solution Implementation: The chosen solution must be examined in terms of how well it responds to various situational constraints that could impede its implementation. To carry out this stage, imagine a check list of resource, interest, and technical constraints that could give rise to obstacles. Go through the list to see if any of these constraints applies to your solution.

Problems can be defined in different ways. By looking at a problem through different definitional frames, we are able to uncover non-obvious, creative solutions.

1. Technical Puzzle: If the problem is framed as a technical puzzle, then solutions would revolve around developing designs that optimize both ethical and technical specifications, that is, resolve the technical issues and realize ethical value. In this instance, the problem-solver must concentrate on the hardware and software components of the surrounding socio-technical system (STS).
2. Social Problem: If the problem is framed as a social problem, then solutions would revolve around changing laws or bringing about systemic reform through political action. This would lead one to focus on the people/groups/roles component (working to social practices) or the legal component of a socio-technical system.
3. Stakeholder Conflict: If the problem is framed as a conflict between different stakeholder interests, then the solution would concentrate on getting stakeholders (both individuals and groups) to agree on integrative or compromise-building solutions. This requires concentrating on the people/group/role component of the STS. (Note: A stakeholder is any group or individual with a vital interest at play in the situation.)
4. Management Problem: Finally, if the problem is framed as a management problem, then the solution would revolve around changing an organization's procedures. Along these lines, it would address the organization's (1) fundamental goals, (2) decision recognition procedures, (3) organizational roles, and/or (4) decision-making hierarchy. These are the four components comprise the organization's CID (corporate internal decision) structure.

Ethics Tests

1. Reversibility: Would this solution alternative be acceptable to those who stand to be most affected by it? To answer this question, change places with those who are targeted by the action and ask if from this new perspective whether the action is still acceptable?
2. Harm / Benefits: What are the harms your solution is likely to produce? What are its benefits? Does this solution produce the least harms and the most benefits when compared to the available alternatives?
3. Publicity: Would you want to be publicly associated or identified with this action? In other words, assume that you will be judged as a person by others in terms of the moral values expressed in the action under consideration. Does this accord with how you would aspire to be judged?

One of the most difficult stages in problem solving is to jump start the process of brainstorming solutions. If you are stuck then here are some generic options guaranteed to get you "unstuck."

1. Gather Information: Many disagreements can be resolved by gathering more information. Because this is the easiest and least painful way of reaching consensus, it is almost always best to start here. Gathering information may not be possible because of different constraints: there may not be enough time, the facts may be too expensive to gather, or the information required goes beyond scientific or technical knowledge. Sometimes gathering more information does not solve the problem but allows for a new, more fruitful formulation of the problem. Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins in Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases show how solving a factual disagreement allows a more profound conceptual disagreement to emerge.
2. Nolo Contendere. Nolo Contendere is latin for not opposing or contending. Your interests may conflict with your supervisor but he or she may be too powerful to reason with or oppose. So your only choice here is to give in to his or her interests. The problem with nolo contendere is that non-opposition is often taken as agreement. You may need to document (e.g., through memos) that you disagree with a course of action and that your choosing not to oppose does not indicate agreement.
3. Negotiate. Good communication and diplomatic skills may make it possible to negotiate a solution that respects the different interests. Value integrative solutions are designed to integrate conflicting values. Compromises allow for partial realization of the conflicting interests. (See the module, The Ethics of Team Work, for compromise strategies such as logrolling or bridging.) Sometimes it may be necessary to set aside one's interests for the present with the understanding that these will be taken care of at a later time. This requires trust.
4. Oppose. If nolo contendere and negotiation are not possible, then opposition may be necessary. Opposition requires marshalling evidence to document one's position persuasively and impartially. It makes use of strategies such as leading an "organizational charge" or "blowing the whistle." For more on whistle-blowing consult the discussion of whistle blowing in the Hughes case that can be found at computing cases.
5. Exit. Opposition may not be possible if one lacks organizational power or documented evidence. Nolo contendere will not suffice if non-opposition implicates one in wrongdoing. Negotiation will not succeed without a necessary basis of trust or a serious value integrative solution. As a last resort, one may have to exit from the situation by asking for reassignment or resigning.

Sample Closing Exercise

• Reasonableness consists of seeking value integrative solutions to ethical problems, drawing compromises without sacrificing integrity, being open to the ideas of others, and providing careful explanations and justifications of your own ideas. Evaluate yourself and your classmates on how well you realized this virtue during this exercise
• Polarization of positions, interests, and people is one of the biggest blocks to problem solving in ethics. It consists of dividing solutions, interests, positions, and people into two camps, one (those who agree with you) being absolutely good, the other (those who disagree with you) being absolutely bad. Did you see evidence of polarization during this activity?
• Give your teacher some feedback here. What was the strongest point of this exercise? The weakest point?
• Finally, list five things that you learned as a result of this exercise.