**eJournal: uffmm.org,
ISSN 2567-6458, 23.Januar 2019
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de **

**CONTEXT**

An overview to the enhanced AAI theory version 2 you can find here. In this post we talk about the first chapter where you have to define the problem, which should be analyzed.

**DEFINING THE PROBLEM**

- Generally it is assumed that the AAI theory is embedded in a general
*systems engineering approach*starting with the clarification of a problem. - Two cases will be distinguished:
- A stakeholder is associated with a certain domain of affairs with some prominent aspect/ parameter P and the stakeholder
*wants to clarify whether P poses some ‘problem’ in this domain*. This presupposes some explained ‘expectations’ E how it should be and some ‘findings’ x pointing to the fact that P is ‘sufficiently different’ from some y>x. If the stakeholder judges that this difference is ‘important’, than P matching x will be classified as a problem, which will be*documented in a ‘problem document D_p’.*One can interpret this analysis as a ‘measurement M’ written as M(P,E) = x and x<y. - Given a problem document D_p a stakeholder
*organizes an analysis to find a ‘solution’ which transfers the old ‘problem P’ into a ‘configuration S’ which at least should ‘minimize the problem P’*. Thus there must exist some ‘measurements’ of the given problem P with regard to certain ‘expectations E’ functioning as a ‘norm’ as M(P,E)=x and some measurements of the new configuration S with regard to the same expectations E as M(S,E)=y and a metric which allows the judgment y > x.

- A stakeholder is associated with a certain domain of affairs with some prominent aspect/ parameter P and the stakeholder
**From this follows that already in the beginning of the analysis of a possible solution one has to refer to some measurement process M with an accepted standard E, otherwise there exists no problem P and no possible solution.**

**EXAMPLE**

The mayor of a city wants to know whether the finances of his city x are in a good state compared to some well accepted standards E. Already the definition of a ‘good state’ of the finances can pose a problem. Let us assume that such a standard E exists and the standard tells the mayor that a ‘good state’ for his finances would ideally equal y or all values ‘above y’. If the measurement M(x, E) would generate a result like x < y, then this would indicate in the ‘light of the standard E’ that his city has a problem P. Knowing this the mayor perhaps is interested to analyze this problem P by organizing a process which gives him as a result a configuration S which generates after a measurement M(S,E) the further result that x = y or even x > y. Thus this new configuration S would be an attractive state which should be a valuable goal state for his city.