Page 245 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

228 Chapter 9

he city of O’Fallon, Missouri, just west of St. Louis, has experienced phenome-
nal growth during the last three decades. In the early 1990s, city officials knew
Tthey would have to find a long- range solution to the city’s water treatment
problems. O’Fallon’s dropping water table signaled that the city couldn’t stay on its
1
deep well system forever. Officials sought a long- term solution that would be both
cost- effective and efficient. In a series of meetings, they determined two criteria for an
effective solution: Whatever they decided to do had to provide high- quality water to
the citizens of O’Fallon and also give the city long- term control over costs. Next, city
officials had to investigate what their options were and discovered three realistic pos-
sibilities. They could interconnect with other water districts to buy water from them,
they could build a traditional- style water treatment plant, or they could build a
membrane treatment plant. Finally, in another series of small group meetings, they
evaluated these options.
Buying water from the surrounding districts would be easy, but this option left
the city at the mercy of other districts in terms of both quality and cost. The tradi-
tional water treatment plant would be cheaper to build initially, but required more
chemicals to treat the water and was likely to need future upgrades as the Environ-
mental Protection Agency continues to tighten water quality standards. The mem-
brane treatment system, which would be more expensive initially, needed fewer
chemicals to provide high- quality water and provided the best long- term control over
costs. Officials concluded that the membrane treatment system best met their two
main criteria. It was the first membrane treatment system built in Missouri.
In addressing this issue, city officials in O’Fallon demonstrated the problem-
solving and decision- making throughput activities central to small groups. In these
two chapters, we consider those two critical small group processes: problem solving
and decision making. In this chapter, we present theoretical information about group
Problem
problem solving and decision making, and in the next chapter we follow up with
The discrepancy practical tips for improving these processes.
between what should
be happening and
what actually is
happening. Problem Solving and Decision Making
A problem is a discrepancy between the current state— what actually is happening—
Problem Solving and a desired goal— what should be happening. Problem solving is the comprehensive,
A comprehensive, multistep procedure a group uses to move from its current state— which is unsatisfac-
multistage procedure tory in some way— to the desired goal. It involves creating and discovering solutions,
for moving from a evaluating them, choosing among them, and putting them into effect. In O’Fallon,
current unsatisfactory the problem was clear: The city’s need for water would soon outstrip the plant’s abil-
state to a desired ity to provide it; doing nothing was not an option. The desired goal was clear: to
goal and developing secure good water for all citizens, affordably, into the foreseeable future. In order to
the plan for reaching solve the problem, city officials had to figure out what the issues were, determine
the goal.
what they hoped to accomplish, discover what their options were and evaluate them,
then select what they thought was the best option. Finally, they had to implement
their solution by building the membrane plant. This problem- solving process took
many months.

gal37018_ch09_225_258.indd 228 3/28/18 12:37 PM