# An Academic Map of Methods for Reframing Problems: From Abduction-2 to Problem Structuring

- Author: Shuichiro Ogawa (Design Researcher / Design Consultant), https://jamjet-iqbal.com/
- Published: 2026-07-21; updated: 2026-07-21
- Canonical (HTML): https://jamjet-iqbal.com/en/notes/problem-definition-methods-literature/
- Japanese version: https://jamjet-iqbal.com/notes/problem-definition-methods-literature/ (Markdown: https://jamjet-iqbal.com/notes/problem-definition-methods-literature.md)
- Language: en
- Keywords: problem-definition, problem-framing, reframing, abduction, frame-creation, design-cognition, functional-fixedness, wicked-problems, problem-structuring-methods, soft-or, cynefin, morphological-analysis, triz, c-k-theory, co-evolution, literature-map

> A literature map that surveys the methods of problem setting, problem framing, and reframing across peer-reviewed research and canon from design methodology, cognitive science, and systems thinking. Starting from Dorst's abduction-2 (frame creation), it connects, by lineage: functional fixedness and representational change in cognitive science (Duncker, Ohlsson, Kaplan & Simon, Chi); the psychology of problem finding and problem construction (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, Reiter-Palmon, Mumford); C-K theory and problem-solution co-evolution (Hatchuel & Weil, Maher & Tang, Wiltschnig); wicked problems and problem structuring methods (Rittel & Webber, Checkland SSM, Eden SODA, Rosenhead PSM, Ackoff); Cynefin (Kurtz & Snowden); morphological analysis (Zwicky, Ritchey); the theorization of TRIZ (Altshuller, Cavallucci); lateral thinking (de Bono); and empirical work on reframing in design (Valkenburg & Dorst, Paton & Dorst, Stompff). A neutral prior-work review. 38 references (bibliography reachability-confirmed and ISBNs fixed; remaining reservations collected at the end).

## Before a Method Solves a Problem, It Remakes the Problem

Methods for solving problems are many.
But the methods that come before them, the ones that reframe the problem itself, are scattered under different names and belong to unrelated lineages.
The design studio calls it "reframing," cognitive science calls it "representational change," and operations research calls it "problem structuring."
It is not only the names that differ; the empirical base each rests on and its theoretical standing differ too.

What this map gathers is the academic provenance of that scattered body of methods.
The starting point is fixed at one thing.
It is the inference that Dorst called **abduction-2** (frame creation), which discovers an answer and a working principle at the same time[^dorst2011].
Against abduction-1, which searches for an unknown answer while holding the working principle fixed, abduction-2 includes the invention of the frame itself: "if we view the situation through this lens, this kind of value comes into being"[^dorst2015].
The methods of problem setting, problem framing, and reframing can be read as attempts to make this leap repeatable.

Read that way, we begin to see that bodies of method from unrelated lineages share a single question.
The diagnosis is that the framing of a problem cannot be fixed by analysis alone.
This note organizes the methods that share this diagnosis into five lineages: cognitive science, design reasoning, problem structuring, complexity frameworks, and structured ideation.
Because an existing literature map treated the inside of design research (from Rittel to Dorst)[^litmap], this note extends to the outside of it, namely to cognitive science, OR, and systems thinking.

[^dorst2011]: Dorst, K. (2011). The Core of 'Design Thinking' and Its Application. *Design Studies* 32(6):521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
[^dorst2015]: Dorst, K. (2015). *Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design*. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262324311.
[^litmap]: The lineage internal to design research (from Rittel to Dorst) is organized in the literature map of design as reframing exploration (private). The catalogue of types treating Problem Definition as a mode of thinking is organized in [Thinking in Problem Definition: Rereading the Game Board of Existing Research](https://jamjet-iqbal.com/en/notes/problem-definition-metagame/).

## Cognitive Science: Reframing a Problem Is First of All Reframing Its Representation

When a problem cannot be reframed, cognitive science locates the cause on the side of representation.
In 1945 Duncker demonstrated experimentally the **functional fixedness** by which an existing functional schema obstructs the re-representation of a problem[^duncker].
Adamson reproduced this across three experiments and confirmed that having a tool used first for its typical purpose strengthens the fixedness[^adamson].
Fixedness is not an exceptional failure but the normal condition in which knowledge pre-empts the representation of a problem, this is the diagnosis.

Ohlsson formulated the escape from fixedness as the theory of **representational change**[^ohlsson].
Insight is not the product of continuous search; it arises when the problem representation is restructured after an impasse.
Kaplan and Simon traced this restructuring in verbal protocols on the mutilated checkerboard problem[^kaplan].
The attainment of insight depends on the discovery of an effective problem representation, and the availability of the generators and constraints that guide that discovery is a predictor of it.

The quality of a problem representation is also an index of expertise.
Chi and colleagues showed that experts classify physics problems by their deep structure (principles) while novices classify them by surface features[^chi].
Expertise can be read as, more than possessing better answers, being able to re-represent a problem in deeper units.
This lineage, running from functional fixedness through representational change to the expert's representation, grounds reframing at the level of cognition.

[^duncker]: Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving (L. S. Lees, Trans.). *Psychological Monographs* 58(5), Whole No. 270. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599
[^adamson]: Adamson, R. E. (1952). Functional fixedness as related to problem solving: a repetition of three experiments. *Journal of Experimental Psychology* 44(4):288–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062487
[^ohlsson]: Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. T. Keane & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), *Advances in the Psychology of Thinking*, Vol. 1, 1–44. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead. (Book chapter; no chapter DOI. Only the host book's ISBN is unconfirmed.)
[^kaplan]: Kaplan, C. A. & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. *Cognitive Psychology* 22(3):374–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90008-R
[^chi]: Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. *Cognitive Science* 5(2):121–152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2

## Problem Finding and Problem Construction Are Measurable Abilities

If the power to reframe a problem is an ability, it should be measurable.
Creativity research has, from this premise, treated the quality of problem setting as a predictor of outcomes.
In a longitudinal study of art students, Getzels and Csikszentmihalyi showed that the quality of **problem finding** before making predicts the success or failure of later creative work[^getzels].

Research on problem construction decomposed problem finding into a measurable process.
Mumford and colleagues divided problem construction in ill-structured domains into stages of information gathering, constraint setting, and goal setting, and developed a scale that operationally measures their quality[^mumford1996].
Reiter-Palmon and Robinson reviewed this lineage and confirmed that problem identification and problem construction are strong predictors of creative output[^reiter].
The psychology of problem finding and problem construction brings reframing down from "talent" to a "measurable process."

[^getzels]: Getzels, J. W. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). *The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art*. Wiley, New York. ISBN 9780471014867. https://archive.org/details/creativevisionlo0000getz
[^mumford1996]: Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P. & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. *Creativity Research Journal* 9(1):63–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0901_6
[^reiter]: Reiter-Palmon, R. & Robinson, E. J. (2009). Problem identification and construction: what do we know, what is the future? *Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts* 3(1):43–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014629

## Design Reasoning: Arranging Abduction as a Logic Proper to Design

Design research has formulated the reframing of problems as a form of inference.
In 1976 March positioned design as a **productive science** that is neither deductive nor inductive, and located its logic in abduction[^march].
Roozenburg took this up and showed through logical analysis that innovative design proceeds by a pattern of productive abduction distinct from established logic[^roozenburg].

At the center of this lineage stands Dorst's abduction-2.
Expert designers begin by probing the central paradox (why solving this problem is hard), and only once the nature of that paradox is settled do they move to constructing a solution[^dorst2011].
Kolko reread design synthesis as abductive sensemaking, situating framing within the process of constructing meaningful patterns from complex data[^kolko].

The lineage is supported not only by logical analysis but by empirical work.
Cramer-Petersen and colleagues analyzed the verbal protocols of five teams and showed that reasoning in idea generation proceeds dominantly by an "abduction-then-deduction" pattern[^cramer].
The theoretical claim of a productive science was thereby confirmed with micro-level reasoning data.

[^march]: March, L. (1976). The logic of design and the question of value. In L. March (Ed.), *The Architecture of Form* (Cambridge Urban and Architectural Studies, No. 4), 1–40. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052120528X. https://archive.org/details/isbn_052120528x
[^roozenburg]: Roozenburg, N. F. M. (1993). On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design. *Design Studies* 14(1):4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(05)80002-X
[^kolko]: Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: the drivers of design synthesis. *Design Issues* 26(1):15–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15
[^cramer]: Cramer-Petersen, C. L., Christensen, B. T. & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2019). Empirically analysing design reasoning patterns: abductive-deductive reasoning patterns dominate design idea generation. *Design Studies* 60:39–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.001

## Moving the Problem Space and the Solution Space at the Same Time

If abduction is a form of inference, then the relation between problem and solution can be formulated as the structure of spaces.
Hatchuel and Weil's C-K theory formalized design as the mutual expansion of a concept space (C) and a knowledge space (K)[^ck].
A concept is a proposition whose logical status cannot be judged in the existing K, and design is the expansion of such undecided concepts through a back-and-forth with knowledge.
In this framework, problem setting becomes "the search for a concept that is undecidable in the existing K."

Research on co-evolution describes the same dynamic as the mutual updating of problem space and solution space.
Maher and Tang formulated the co-evolution of problem space and solution space from both computational and cognitive angles[^maher].
Wiltschnig and colleagues extended this to the team level and showed through qualitative analysis that episodes of co-evolution appear coupled with analogy and mental simulation[^wiltschnig].
The co-evolution of problem and solution shows that problem definition is not a prior stage separated from the search for solutions, but a process updated in parallel with that search.

[^ck]: Hatchuel, A. & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. *Research in Engineering Design* 19(4):181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4
[^maher]: Maher, M. L. & Tang, H. H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. *Research in Engineering Design* 14(1):47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0016-y
[^wiltschnig]: Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T. & Ball, L. J. (2013). Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design. *Design Studies* 34(5):515–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.002

## Problem Structuring: Institutionalizing the "Debate over Problem Setting" for Ill-Structured Problems

In a different place from design research, operations research also faced the indeterminacy of problems.
Ackoff conceived of social problems as a mess of interdependent problems and criticized the reductionism that treats a problem as an isolated puzzle[^ackoff].
Rittel and Webber's **wicked problems** formulated ten properties of problems that have no definitive formulation and stated that the formulation of the problem is itself the problem[^rittel].

Against this diagnosis, British OR institutionalized problem structuring as a methodology.
Checkland's **soft systems methodology** (SSM) reframed the problem as a "situation" and gave a procedure for debating change through rich pictures, CATWOE, and the comparison of conceptual models[^checkland1990].
In a thirty-year retrospective, Checkland set out how SSM developed into a methodology-driven Mode 1 and a situation-driven Mode 2[^checkland2000].
Eden's cognitive mapping externalizes how individuals and groups see a problem as a map, and became the foundational technique of SODA (Strategic Options Development and Analysis)[^eden].

These bodies of method were systematized as **problem structuring methods** (PSM).
The standard text by Rosenhead and Mingers collected SSM, SODA, strategic choice, and robustness analysis in one book and positioned them as methods for dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and conflict[^rosenhead2001].
Mingers and Rosenhead surveyed these cases of practice[^mingers], and Rosenhead looked back on PSM as a departure from the scientific-rationality paradigm of hard OR[^rosenhead2006].
This is a lineage that, outside design, put the debate over problem setting itself onto a methodology.

[^ackoff]: Ackoff, R. L. (1974). *Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems*. Wiley, New York. ISBN 9780471002963. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL5049582M
[^rittel]: Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. *Policy Sciences* 4(2):155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
[^checkland1990]: Checkland, P. B. & Scholes, J. (1990). *Soft Systems Methodology in Action*. Wiley, Chichester. ISBN 9780471927686. https://www.abebooks.com/9780471927686/Soft-Systems-Methodology-Action-Import-0471927686/plp
[^checkland2000]: Checkland, P. B. (2000). Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. *Systems Research and Behavioral Science* 17(S1):S11–S58. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1743(200011)17:1+<::AID-SRES374>3.0.CO;2-O
[^eden]: Eden, C. (1988). Cognitive mapping. *European Journal of Operational Research* 36(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90002-1
[^rosenhead2001]: Rosenhead, J. & Mingers, J. (Eds.) (2001). *Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict* (2nd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 9780471495239.
[^mingers]: Mingers, J. & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. *European Journal of Operational Research* 152(3):530–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00056-0
[^rosenhead2006]: Rosenhead, J. (2006). Past, present and future of problem structuring methods. *Journal of the Operational Research Society* 57(7):759–765. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602206

## Changing How the Problem Is Seen According to the Type of Complexity

Where problem structuring supplies a procedure, Cynefin has one first discern the type of problem situation.
Kurtz and Snowden divided situations broadly into ordered and unordered systems and, drawing on complexity theory and narrative, set out that the legitimate modes of problem perception and decision making differ across each domain[^kurtz].
The practitioner version by Snowden and Boone explained that a misclassification of the domain, such as treating a wicked problem as merely a complicated one, produces failures of problem setting[^snowden].
The claim of Cynefin is a demand one step earlier: before reframing a problem, determine what kind of problem situation one is in at all.

[^kurtz]: Kurtz, C. F. & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. *IBM Systems Journal* 42(3):462–483. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.423.0462
[^snowden]: Snowden, D. J. & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. *Harvard Business Review* 85(11):68–76. (Practitioner magazine, not peer-reviewed.) https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

## Structured Ideation: Exhausting the Problem Space and Placing Contradiction at the Core

Another route to reframing a problem is to structure the problem space systematically.
Zwicky's **general morphological analysis** (GMA) structures a multidimensional problem exhaustively as a matrix of parameters and options[^zwicky].
Ritchey applied this to wicked problems and gave a framework that makes a non-quantitative problem complex visible through decomposition and combination, and prunes the solution space through constraint satisfaction[^ritchey].

On the engineering side, TRIZ places the core of a problem in contradiction.
From the analysis of several hundred thousand patents, Altshuller formulated the removal of technical and physical contradictions as the essence of invention, and provided forty inventive principles and the contradiction matrix[^altshuller].
Cavallucci and colleagues extended this contradiction model to complex problems (OTSM-TRIZ)[^cavallucci2007] and connected contradictions to the laws of engineering-system evolution, integrating problem definition with the prediction of directions of development[^cavallucci2009].
This operation of framing a problem as "contradiction" can be read as an engineering variant of reframing.

Lateral thinking states this lineage as the most general cognitive strategy.
De Bono distinguished lateral thinking from vertical thinking in terms of information processing, and presented a strategy of deliberately interrupting existing patterns to search for new ones[^debono].
GMA widens the problem space, TRIZ places contradiction at the core, and lateral thinking prompts the switching of patterns.
In each case, instead of deepening the answer inside a given frame, they recompose the frame itself.

[^zwicky]: Zwicky, F. (1969). *Discovery, Invention, Research Through the Morphological Approach*. Macmillan.
[^ritchey]: Ritchey, T. (2013). Wicked problems: modelling social messes with morphological analysis. *Acta Morphologica Generalis* 2(1). ISSN 2001-2241. (Self-published journal of the Swedish Morphological Society; non-peer-reviewed; not registered with CrossRef.) https://www.swemorph.com/pdf/wp.pdf
[^altshuller]: Altshuller, G. S. (1984). *Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems* (A. Williams, Trans.). Gordon & Breach, New York. ISBN 9780677212302. (Russian original *Tvorchestvo kak tochnaya nauka*, 1979.) https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/1223823
[^cavallucci2007]: Cavallucci, D. & Khomenko, N. (2007). From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ: addressing complexity challenges in inventive design. *International Journal of Product Development* 4(1/2):4–21. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2007.011530 (Both authors confirmed via CrossRef. Morel is a co-author of a different paper.)
[^cavallucci2009]: Cavallucci, D., Rousselot, F. & Zanni, C. (2009). Linking contradictions and laws of engineering system evolution within the TRIZ framework. *Creativity and Innovation Management* 18(2):71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00515.x
[^debono]: de Bono, E. (1969). Information processing and new ideas: lateral and vertical thinking. *Journal of Creative Behavior* 3(3):159–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1969.tb00124.x

## Where in the Design Studio Does Reframing Happen

Granting that theory and method preach the reframing of problems, where in practice does it happen?
Design research has confirmed this through observation.
Valkenburg and Dorst applied Schön's reflective practice to design teams and demonstrated by observation the cycle of framing, moving, evaluating, and reflecting[^valkenburg].
Reframing arises not only as individual introspection but as team interaction (the cognitive mechanisms and practical techniques that activate it are organized in [Activating Reframing in Design](https://jamjet-iqbal.com/en/notes/reframing-activation-in-design/)).

What is the trigger?
From interviews with fifteen practicing designers, Paton and Dorst showed that briefing with a client is a situated practice that induces reframing through the exchange of frames[^paton].
Stompff and colleagues found, in a qualitative analysis of multidisciplinary teams, that unexpected **surprise** becomes a principal trigger of reframing[^stompff].
The reframing of a problem can be read as an event that arises not from quiet thought but from negotiation with others and the confounding of expectation.

[^valkenburg]: Valkenburg, R. & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. *Design Studies* 19(3):249–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8
[^paton]: Paton, B. & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: a situated practice. *Design Studies* 32(6):573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.002
[^stompff]: Stompff, G., Smulders, F. & Henze, L. (2016). Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams. *Design Studies* 47:187–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.004

## The Blank Spaces of This Map

The five lineages share the diagnosis that the framing of a problem cannot be fixed by analysis alone.
Even so, the lineages are almost never connected to one another.

Representational change in cognitive science and abduction-2 in design describe the same movement, "from impasse to frame shift," in different vocabularies, but whether the two are the same cognitive mechanism has not been examined theoretically.
Peer-reviewed research that directly compares or integrates problem structuring methods (SSM or SODA) with design's frame creation scarcely exists.
Morphological analysis and TRIZ have a track record in policy analysis and engineering, but the "structuring of non-quantitative problem complexes" they handle there has not been taken into the toolkit of design practice.
There are also methods, such as Jobs-to-be-Done, which are widely used in industry yet have almost no academic formulation, being practice-originated[^industry].

These blank spaces come not from a shortage of methods but from the thinness of the theory that bridges methods to one another.
This note has merely laid the lineages side by side and leaves that bridging open.

[^industry]: The practice-side (industry) methods and their origins, along with the gap between academia and industry, are organized in [A Genealogy of Practitioner Methods for Reframing Problems: Who Made Them, Traced to Their Origins](https://jamjet-iqbal.com/en/notes/problem-definition-methods-industry/).

## Related Notes

- [Thinking in Problem Definition: Rereading the Game Board of Existing Research](https://jamjet-iqbal.com/en/notes/problem-definition-metagame/) — the applied companion that types Problem Definition as a mode of research thinking (rereading the game board)
- [Where Are the Gaps in AI Research? Seven Voids Found by Reframing](https://jamjet-iqbal.com/en/notes/ai-research-gaps-abduction/) — the practice of applying abduction-2 to the search for gaps in AI research
- [A Genealogy of Practitioner Methods for Reframing Problems: Who Made Them, Traced to Their Origins](https://jamjet-iqbal.com/en/notes/problem-definition-methods-industry/) — the industry (practice-method) version of this note

## References

The source material is `source/review/problem-definition-methods/papers.md` (a repository-internal, unpublished corpus).
Each work is given with DOI/URL/ISBN. Works whose bibliography is unconfirmed or whose full text was not reached carry `[primary-source verification needed]`.

### Method (Abduction-2, Frame Creation)

- Dorst, K. (2011). The Core of 'Design Thinking' and Its Application. *Design Studies* 32(6):521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
- Dorst, K. (2015). *Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design*. MIT Press. ISBN 9780262324311.

### Cognitive Science (Functional Fixedness, Insight, Problem Representation)

- Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. *Psychological Monographs* 58(5), Whole No. 270. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093599
- Adamson, R. E. (1952). Functional fixedness as related to problem solving: a repetition of three experiments. *Journal of Experimental Psychology* 44(4):288–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062487
- Ohlsson, S. (1992). Information-processing explanations of insight and related phenomena. In M. T. Keane & K. J. Gilhooly (Eds.), *Advances in the Psychology of Thinking*, Vol. 1, 1–44. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead. (Book chapter; no chapter DOI. ISBN unconfirmed.)
- Kaplan, C. A. & Simon, H. A. (1990). In search of insight. *Cognitive Psychology* 22(3):374–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(90)90008-R
- Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J. & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. *Cognitive Science* 5(2):121–152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2

### Problem Finding and Problem Construction (Creativity Psychology)

- Getzels, J. W. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). *The Creative Vision: A Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art*. Wiley, New York. ISBN 9780471014867. https://archive.org/details/creativevisionlo0000getz
- Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P. & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. *Creativity Research Journal* 9(1):63–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj0901_6
- Reiter-Palmon, R. & Robinson, E. J. (2009). Problem identification and construction: what do we know, what is the future? *Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts* 3(1):43–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014629
- Mumford, M. D., Reiter-Palmon, R. & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), *Problem Finding, Problem Solving and Creativity*, 3–39. Ablex, Norwood, NJ. ISBN 9780893919756. https://openlibrary.org/works/OL3289536W

### Design Reasoning (Abduction)

- March, L. (1976). The logic of design and the question of value. In L. March (Ed.), *The Architecture of Form* (Cambridge Urban and Architectural Studies, No. 4), 1–40. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 052120528X. https://archive.org/details/isbn_052120528x
- Roozenburg, N. F. M. (1993). On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design. *Design Studies* 14(1):4–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(05)80002-X
- Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: the drivers of design synthesis. *Design Issues* 26(1):15–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15
- Cramer-Petersen, C. L., Christensen, B. T. & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2019). Empirically analysing design reasoning patterns. *Design Studies* 60:39–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.001

### C-K Theory and Problem-Solution Co-Evolution

- Hatchuel, A. & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. *Research in Engineering Design* 19(4):181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4
- Maher, M. L. & Tang, H. H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. *Research in Engineering Design* 14(1):47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0016-y
- Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T. & Ball, L. J. (2013). Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design. *Design Studies* 34(5):515–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.002

### Wicked Problems and Problem Structuring Methods (PSM / Soft OR)

- Ackoff, R. L. (1974). *Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems*. Wiley, New York. ISBN 9780471002963. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL5049582M
- Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. *Policy Sciences* 4(2):155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
- Checkland, P. B. & Scholes, J. (1990). *Soft Systems Methodology in Action*. Wiley, Chichester. ISBN 9780471927686. https://www.abebooks.com/9780471927686/Soft-Systems-Methodology-Action-Import-0471927686/plp
- Checkland, P. B. (2000). Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. *Systems Research and Behavioral Science* 17(S1):S11–S58. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1743(200011)17:1+<::AID-SRES374>3.0.CO;2-O
- Eden, C. (1988). Cognitive mapping. *European Journal of Operational Research* 36(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90002-1
- Rosenhead, J. & Mingers, J. (Eds.) (2001). *Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited* (2nd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 9780471495239.
- Mingers, J. & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. *European Journal of Operational Research* 152(3):530–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00056-0
- Rosenhead, J. (2006). Past, present and future of problem structuring methods. *Journal of the Operational Research Society* 57(7):759–765. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602206

### Complexity Frameworks (Cynefin)

- Kurtz, C. F. & Snowden, D. J. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. *IBM Systems Journal* 42(3):462–483. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.423.0462
- Snowden, D. J. & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader's framework for decision making. *Harvard Business Review* 85(11):68–76. (Practitioner magazine.) https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making

### Structured Ideation (Morphological Analysis, TRIZ, Lateral Thinking)

- Zwicky, F. (1969). *Discovery, Invention, Research Through the Morphological Approach*. Macmillan. https://archive.org/details/discoveryinventi0000zwic
- Ritchey, T. (2013). Wicked problems: modelling social messes with morphological analysis. *Acta Morphologica Generalis* 2(1). ISSN 2001-2241. (Self-published journal; non-peer-reviewed; not registered with CrossRef.) https://www.swemorph.com/pdf/wp.pdf
- Altshuller, G. S. (1984). *Creativity as an Exact Science* (A. Williams, Trans.). Gordon & Breach, New York. ISBN 9780677212302. (Russian original 1979.) https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/1223823
- Cavallucci, D. & Khomenko, N. (2007). From TRIZ to OTSM-TRIZ. *International Journal of Product Development* 4(1/2):4–21. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2007.011530
- Cavallucci, D., Rousselot, F. & Zanni, C. (2009). Linking contradictions and laws of engineering system evolution within the TRIZ framework. *Creativity and Innovation Management* 18(2):71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00515.x
- de Bono, E. (1969). Information processing and new ideas: lateral and vertical thinking. *Journal of Creative Behavior* 3(3):159–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1969.tb00124.x

### Empirical Work on Reframing in Design and Related

- Valkenburg, R. & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. *Design Studies* 19(3):249–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8
- Paton, B. & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: a situated practice. *Design Studies* 32(6):573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.002
- Stompff, G., Smulders, F. & Henze, L. (2016). Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams. *Design Studies* 47:187–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.004
- Schön, D. A. (1987). *Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions*. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. ISBN 9781555420253. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED295518
- Rowe, P. G. (1987). *Design Thinking*. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. ISBN 9780262181228. https://archive.org/details/designthinking0000pete
- Dunne, D. & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education. *Academy of Management Learning & Education* 5(4):512–523. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2006.23473212
- Maiden, N. A. M. & Rugg, G. (1996). ACRE: selecting methods for requirements acquisition. *Software Engineering Journal* 11(3):183–192. https://doi.org/10.1049/sej.1996.0024

### Unverified Items (`[primary-source verification needed]`)

Bibliographic reachability was confirmed and ISBNs fixed (2026-07-21), and the initially unconfirmed ten items were largely resolved. The remaining reservations are as follows.

- Ohlsson (1992): editors, publisher, and page range confirmed to agree across multiple sources. Only the host book's ISBN is unconfirmed.
- Altshuller: the first English translation is confirmed as 1984, Gordon & Breach (ISBN 9780677212302) (the initial "1988" notation was a conflation with a reprint year). The exact publication year of the Routledge reissue (ISBN 9780367580360) is unconfirmed.
- Ritchey (2013): the publishing journal *Acta Morphologica Generalis* is confirmed to be a self-published journal of the Swedish Morphological Society, non-peer-reviewed and not registered with CrossRef (noted here as the academic standing of the content). The PDF is reachable.
- Cavallucci & Khomenko (2007): the authors are confirmed to be only two (Morel was a conflation with a co-author of a different paper, "Towards inventive design through management of contradictions"). DOI confirmed.