[1] PSMs are usually used by a group of people in collaboration (rather than by a solitary individual) to create a consensus about, or at least to facilitate negotiations about, what needs to change.
[17] The following table lists similar (but not exactly equivalent) distinctions made by a number of thinkers between two types of "problem" situations, which can be seen as a continuum between a left and right extreme:[18] Tame problems (or puzzles or technical challenges) have relatively precise, straightforward formulations that are often amenable to solution with some predetermined technical fix or algorithm.
Eden and Ackermann identified four characteristics that problem structuring methods have in common:[19] Rosenhead provided another list of common characteristics of PSMs, formulated in a more prescriptive style:[20] An early literature review of problem structuring proposed grouping the texts reviewed into "four streams of thought" that describe some major differences between methods:[21] Mingers and Rosenhead have noted that there are similarities and differences between PSMs and large group methods such as Future Search, Open Space Technology, and others.
Examples of applications reported included: designing a parliamentary briefing system, modeling the San Francisco Zoo, developing a business strategy and information system strategy, planning livestock management in Nepal, regional planning in South Africa, modeling hospital outpatient services, and eliciting knowledge about pesticides.
The shared display could be flip charts, a large whiteboard, Post-it notes on the meeting room walls, and/or a personal computer connected to a video projector.
[26] Software programs for supporting problem structuring include Banxia Decision Explorer and Group Explorer,[27] which implement cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA), and Compendium, which implements IBIS for dialogue mapping and related methods;[28] a similar program is called Wisdom.