Resolution and Synthesis
Throughout the problem-solving process, problem solvers have to make decisions—decisions about the nature and scope of the problem, about research design and methods of collecting data, and about what the data collected actually mean, given the problem as defined. But it is in the resolution and synthesis stage that decisions must be made about what may or ultimately will solve the problem. These decisions mean that the significance of the analysis of the preceding stage must be determined, as well as whether that significance suggests a solution or solutions to the problem.

Decisions also have to be made about how reasonable the solutions are and why some are more reasonable than others. In other words, what are the general advantages and disadvantages of any one of the possible solutions? n answer to this question involves general assessments of costs and time and the final effect of the solution in light of expected or possible results.

Many would think that resolution and synthesis should be the last step in technical problem solving, because it implies a solution to the problem. On the face of it, that is true, but it is important to remember that not all problems can be solved, or at least not readily solved, within the limitations of time and resources. The trouble we as a society have had in solving such problems as poverty and the plight of the homeless; in finding cures for cancer, heart disease, and AIDS; and in wiping out our international trade or national budget deficits is evidence enough that not all problems can readily be solved. It may take years, decades, even centuries before some problems are solved, and even then we have to be careful when deciding whether a solution is indeed a solution, and not just a diversion from the basics of the problem, or whether the solution creates other problems. A common example of this kind of situation is one that Rachel Carson talks about in “The Obligation to Endure” from Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962). In our quest to improve agricultural production and to rid ourselves of the pests that attack our crops, we have come up with ever more powerful chemicals to spray on the pests (but also onto the crops and thus into the environment). In so doing, we have added to already staggering conditions of pollution, risking, as Carson says, “the contamination of man's total environment with substances that accumulate in the tissues of plants and animals and even penetrate the germ cells to shatter or alter the very material of heredity upon which the shape of the future depends.” What we have done is to find a short-term solution (killing the present pests) that in itself creates a much longer-term problem. In Carson's words, “It is ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray.”

This notion should not be overstated and therefore misunderstood. Most problems that professionals have to face on a day-to-day basis can be solved, at least in the short term, without the kind of damage Rachel Carson talks about. But it seems more realistic and useful to think about this step of the process as one by which the elements of the problem, after being defined, researched, and analyzed, are put back together and then some decision is made, rather than think of it as absolutely the last step, where a solution for better or for worse is declared. In this way, we can account for both those problems that actually can be solved within limitations of time and resources, and those that require repeated addresses, and resolutions and syntheses along the way, before they ultimately can be solved.

Susan James's problem fits into the category of problems resolved or synthesized, but not actually solved. Although she was initially troubled and unsure about how to report on progress that showed no extraordinary achievement, she was satisfied, after she had defined the problem and collected and analyzed the data, that the decision she had made not to purchase the crane from Jones and Son was sound. She was sure that her recommendation to go through a more extensive bidding process, which now would meet the guidelines of the minority contractors program, would eventually turn up a supplier who could best meet ITE's needs. She was also sure that her decision and recommendation were unassailable, and that if she were to be criticized for making them, that outcome would have to happen for reasons other than the good practical sense she had shown. But the fact is that she had not actually solved the original problem: finding and putting in place a crane to meet Engineering's needs in record time. The solution to that problem was yet to come.

It may seem obvious that the resolution and synthesis step involves making decisions, the kind of decisions that finally initiate action. But other decisions are usually made at various earlier steps in the process of technical problem solving, and they anticipate resolution and synthesis and the final step, if it is possible to carry out, implementation.

To illustrate this circumstance with Susan James's case, once she suspected that the Jones and Son crane probably would not serve ITE's needs, she decided to compare and contrast Jones and Son's specifications to those of other suppliers. And further, since she knew that Jones and Son would not qualify as a preferred supplier under the minority contractors program, she decided to research and explain more fully how the program affected purchasing and the other operations of ITE as she understood them. Both of these decisions were based on information Susan obtained before this resolution and synthesis step.

So we see that resolution and synthesis means putting back the pieces of the ongoing analysis, making things simpler to see as a whole, and confirming decisions that have already been made, at least tentatively, earlier in the process. The result of resolving and synthesizing a problem is seldom a surprise, and it shouldn't be. Good preparation, which means careful definition and thoughtful collection and analysis of data, will suggest how a problem is to be solved, or resolved and synthesized. Resolution and synthesis becomes, then, both a resting place and a spur to action.

For Susan James, it meant that she could see the sense in what she had decided and that there should now be no barriers to acquiring a crane through acceptable means, given the findings of her research and analysis. This problem for Susan James is solved, at least for now. In her quarterly report, she will explain why she did not contract Jones and Son; will recommend strongly that ITE seek other suppliers, in keeping with the guidelines of the minority contractors program; and will stress that in all future major acquisitions, the same process be followed.

Elizabeth Frederickson's task of resolving and synthesizing is hard. It means deciding how her firm's hazardous materials affect the environment and how the impact as defined and dealt with coincides with concerns of environmental groups and with legislation. It becomes a balancing act, one that she has to perform to meet at least three demands: the needs of her employer, the needs of the public, and the needs dictated by her own position as a professional chemist.

Each situation poses problems of ethics. Elizabeth must exhibit loyalty to her employer and try to further the company's best interests, so that she can get along in the company; she must understand and have a certain sympathy with the public, because the public has a right to be heard and protected; and she must understand and stand up for the conduct and ethics of her own profession. Her suggestions, then, based upon her laboratory work and her library work, have to take all these considerations into account. Absolute solutions, under these conditions, are not possible. But Elizabeth can suggest ways of proceeding that will address, if not exactly solve, all the problems that each group perceives in an attempt to bring all three together in some kind of reasonable and responsible package. This understanding is tricky, but not impossible.

Patricia Wynjenek's resolving and synthesizing situation is different from the preceding cases. She has to decide two things, which initially may not be seen as solutions to the problems that suggest them. First, she has to decide how the people she is studying actually survive economically, while keeping their family structures and their extrafamilial social structures intact. She also has to decide what that information means for the way those people are perceived by others.

The first decision comes directly from the analysis of her research. This decision serves as a resolution and synthesis of the kind defined earlier—one that offers no solution. Economically speaking, the people she is studying survive on very little, but they are willing and able to do so as long as they can keep their families intact. Ironically, however, it is because they keep their families together that they are worse off economically than many of their counterparts in other poor urban areas of the United States.

These families have few material goods, and those they have are old, used, and in constant need of repair. Their housing is likewise old or cheaply constructed and small. Their nutrition is below standard, relying heavily on starches and other carbohydrates and less on animal protein and fruits and vegetables. They have limited access to medical care, though they do not avoid modern, “scientific” methods; neither do they throw over completely traditional means of healing; many do not have family doctors and rely largely on a handful of free clinics or hospital emergency rooms for necessary medical attention. Nevertheless, the population has a strong sense of community, family obligation, and self-worth. Although statistically, and in real terms, they are a part of the growing underclass of American citizens, they manifest few of the commonly understood signs of alienation and disaffection associated with other American populations suffering from economic deprivation.

Deciding what these elements mean about the ways that others, such as sociologists, social workers, and government bureaucrats, perceive these problems and phenomena and deal with them, and more important, how they will deal with them in the future, is a problem Patricia Wynjenek has yet to solve. But having done her study, having resolved and synthesized many of the problems she had before doing her work, she is now in a much better position to attempt to solve that problem.