Next Article in Journal
Network Models for Cognitive Development and Intelligence
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparing Business Experts and Novices in Complex Problem Solving
Previous Article in Journal
Intelligence and Cognitive Development: Three Sides of the Same Coin
Previous Article in Special Issue
Complex Problem Solving in Assessments of Collaborative Problem Solving
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
J. Intell. 2017, 5(2), 15; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5020015

Missing the Wood for the Wrong Trees: On the Difficulty of Defining the Complexity of Complex Problem Solving Scenarios

1
School of Education, Durham University, Leazes Rd, Durham DH1 1TA, UK
2
Faculty of Arts, Business and Law, Centre for Human Factors and Sociotechnical Systems, University of the Sunshine Coast, 90 Sippy Downs Drive, Sippy Downs, QLD 4556, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Samuel Greiff and Ronny Scherer
Received: 4 February 2017 / Revised: 18 March 2017 / Accepted: 10 April 2017 / Published: 13 April 2017
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [713 KB, uploaded 14 April 2017]   |  

Abstract

In this paper we discuss how the lack of a common framework in Complex Problem Solving (CPS) creates a major hindrance to a productive integration of findings and insights gained in its 40+-year history of research. We propose a framework that anchors complexity within the tri-dimensional variable space of Person, Task and Situation. Complexity is determined by the number of information cues that need to be processed in parallel. What constitutes an information cue is dependent on the kind of task, the system or CPS scenario used and the task environment (i.e., situation) in which the task is performed. Difficulty is conceptualised as a person’s subjective reflection of complexity. Using an existing data set of N = 294 university students’ problem solving performances, we test the assumption derived from this framework that particular system features such as numbers of variables (NoV) or numbers of relationships (NoR) are inappropriate indicators of complexity. We do so by contrasting control performance across four systems that differ in these attributes. Results suggest that for controlling systems (task) with semantically neutral embedment (situation), the maximum number of dependencies any of the output variables has is a promising indicator of this task’s complexity. View Full-Text
Keywords: complexity; difficulty; Person, Task and Situation; system characteristics; DYNAMIS; complex problem solving complexity; difficulty; Person, Task and Situation; system characteristics; DYNAMIS; complex problem solving
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
  • Get alerts for new papers matching your research
  • Find out the new papers from selected authors
  • Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
  • Define your Scifeed now

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Beckmann, J.F.; Goode, N. Missing the Wood for the Wrong Trees: On the Difficulty of Defining the Complexity of Complex Problem Solving Scenarios. J. Intell. 2017, 5, 15.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
J. Intell. EISSN 2079-3200 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top