General group problem solving model¶

A facilitated group method that defines a desired outcome, diagnoses the gap from the current state, generates alternatives, and converts selected ideas into assigned actions.

Version: v2 · 2026-09-19 · History
Domain-specific #: 4686
Domain group: Social Sciences
Origin domain: Psychology & Behavioral Sciences
Subdomain: Group Decision Making → Psychology & Behavioral Sciences

Core Idea¶

The GGPS model treats problem solving as an explicit sequence of outcome definition, gap analysis, divergent ideation, evaluation, and implementation planning while incorporating contextual constraints and group dynamics. Participants establish a shared target and current-state evidence, identify causes or barriers, generate options without premature closure, evaluate them under agreed criteria, and assign sequenced actions and feedback. The abstraction is therefore identified by a declared carrier, a transformation or constraint over that carrier, and an invariant that tells an analyst whether the named structure is genuinely present.

How would you explain it like I'm…

Team Fix-It Steps

When a team has a problem, like a messy classroom, they first agree on what 'fixed' looks like. Then they look at how things are now and figure out why it's messy. Next they think up lots of ideas without saying 'no' too fast. Last, they pick the best idea, decide who does what and when, and check if it worked.

Goal-Gap-Ideas-Plan Method

The General group problem solving model is a step-by-step way for a group to solve a problem together. First the group agrees on the goal and looks at facts about how things are now. Then they figure out the gap between the two and what's causing it. Next they brainstorm lots of ideas before judging any, and then they compare the ideas using rules everyone agreed on. Finally they plan who does each job, in what order, and how they'll check whether it's working, while keeping in mind real limits and how the group gets along.

Structured Group Problem-Solving Cycle

The General group problem solving model breaks group problem solving into a clear sequence: define the desired outcome, analyze the gap between it and the current state, generate ideas divergently, evaluate options, and plan implementation. Participants first build a shared target and gather evidence about the present situation, then identify the causes or barriers that create the gap. During ideation they avoid premature closure, which means locking onto an answer too early. Options are then judged against agreed criteria, and the group assigns ordered actions with owners, timing and feedback. Unlike a generic meeting, the model also explicitly considers contextual constraints and group dynamics.

The General group problem solving (GGPS) model structures collective problem solving as an explicit sequence: outcome definition, gap analysis, divergent ideation, evaluation, and implementation planning. It also builds in contextual constraints and group dynamics. Participants first establish a shared target state and evidence about the current state, then diagnose the causes or barriers that make up the gap. Ideation follows a rule against premature closure, which separates generating options from judging them. Options are evaluated under criteria agreed in advance, and the selected actions are given owners, a sequence, timing and a feedback process. What identifies an instance of GGPS is that these elements are made explicit: the participating group, desired and current states, diagnosed gap, ideation rule, option criteria, selected actions, ownership, timing and feedback. A loose resemblance to 'group decision making' is not enough.

Scope of Application¶

General group problem solving model belongs to group decision making and is useful where the analyst can specify the typed group decision making carrier, defining objects and relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundary cases, and comparison targets, then evaluate the participating group, desired and current states, diagnosed gap, ideation rule, option criteria, selected actions, ownership, timing, and feedback process are explicit. The scope is broad within that domain but bounded by the need for the participating group, desired and current states, diagnosed gap, ideation rule, option criteria, selected actions, ownership, timing, and feedback process are explicit. The entry records a descriptive analytical identity; practical use requires the governing domain's evidence, standards, and safety obligations.

Clarity¶

The abstraction clarifies a crowded vocabulary by making the participating group, desired and current states, diagnosed gap, ideation rule, option criteria, selected actions, ownership, timing, and feedback process are explicit the center of the account. A claim should name the carrier, the governing operation or relation, the applicable assumptions, and the recognition test. A bare label is insufficient because the name General group problem solving model can be used for a formal identity, an implementation, or a neighboring result unless carrier and convention are stated.

Manages Complexity¶

Without the abstraction, an analyst must reason directly over many local details: the carrier roles, admissibility assumptions, competing conventions, derived invariants, boundary cases, and proof or validation obligations specific to General group problem solving model. General group problem solving model compresses them into the roles in the structural signature. That compression permits comparison across instances without erasing the variables that determine validity. It also exposes which details may be varied safely and which are constitutive.

Abstract Reasoning¶

Identify the carrier. State what the elements, states, objects, or observations are: the typed group decision making carrier, defining objects and relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundary cases, and comparison targets. Reject examples whose alleged carrier belongs to a different problem.
Lock the constitutive rule. Express the participating group, desired and current states, diagnosed gap, ideation rule, option criteria, selected actions, ownership, timing, and feedback process are explicit independently of one notation or implementation.

Knowledge Transfer¶

Knowledge transfers strongly among subfields of group decision making because they reuse the typed group decision making carrier, defining objects and relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundary cases, and comparison targets, Participants establish a shared target and current-state evidence, identify causes or barriers, generate options without premature closure, evaluate them under agreed criteria, and assign sequenced actions and feedback., and type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that the participating group, desired and current states, diagnosed gap, ideation rule, option criteria, selected actions, ownership, timing, and feedback process are explicit, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases.

Relationships to Other Abstractions¶

Current abstraction General group problem solving model Domain-specific

Parents (1) — outgoing typed relations

General group problem solving model is a kind of Coordination Prime

It remains its own entry because its identity is fixed by the participating group, desired and current states, diagnosed gap, ideation rule, option criteria, selected actions, ownership, timing, and feedback process.

Hierarchy paths (5) — routes to 4 parentless roots

General group problem solving model → is a kind of Coordination → presupposes Concurrency

Show alternative paths (4)

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶

General group problem solving model sits in a crowded region of the domain-specific corpus (20^th percentile for distinctiveness): several abstractions share nearly its structure, so a description that fits it tends to fit its neighbors too.

Family — Organizational Governance & Process Methods (46 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-10-25