The art of thinking · 6 · Judgment, action and error
Means–end analysis
Also known as: Means-end analysis, Means–ends analysis, Problem space
German: Mittel-Ziel-Analyse
In cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence, means–end analysis is a problem-solving strategy in which the solver compares the current state with the goal state, selects an operator that reduces the most important difference, and sets subgoals when that operator can’t yet be applied; it was described by Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon.
- Cognitive psychology
- Problem solving
In one sentence
Means–end analysis solves problems by reducing the difference between current state and goal step by step, setting subgoals where needed.
Example
Goal: the line runs again. Difference: zone Z2 is stopped. Operator: reset Z2 — but it can’t be applied while a guard is open, so “close the guard” becomes a subgoal. A good restart procedure follows this structure.
What the research shows
Newell, Shaw and Simon built the General Problem Solver (from 1957) on means–end analysis and compared its traces with think-aloud protocols of people solving logic problems. Human Problem Solving (1972) generalized the approach: a problem is a search through a problem space of states and operators, guided by heuristics such as difference reduction. Classic test problems include the Tower of Hanoi and river-crossing puzzles.
Evidence status
Means–end analysis is a well-documented heuristic in novice problem solving in unfamiliar domains. It is not how experts usually work: they recognize situations and apply known solutions (see skill-, rule- and knowledge-based behavior). Cognitive load research found that means–end search uses working memory heavily and can interfere with learning from problem solving, which is one argument for worked examples.
How it applies
Procedures that state the goal, the current state to check and the conditions for each step support readers who work by difference reduction; troubleshooting that starts from the symptom does the same. The applied side — hierarchical task analysis, worked examples and job aids — is in the application and documentation glossaries.
External references
- Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall.
How to read this pool
Entries, context cards and transitional topics
The art of thinking explains ways of thinking — where a method comes from, what it asks of you and how it was adapted later. You meet four kinds of content here, each with its own job:
- Glossary entry
- Defines one concept or method of thinking: its origin, an example and how it relates to neighboring ideas. “X vs. Y” sections set two methods side by side.
- Context card of the art of thinking
- A short, self-contained answer to one question about a way of thinking — its lineage, its steps, its limits. These cards are listed on The art of thinking only.
- Transitional topicBridges both pools
- A context card that bridges both pools: it shows how a way of thinking was adapted into documentation, analysis or quality practice. It sits with the reference context cards and is marked as transitional wherever it appears.
- Reference entry or context card
- Belongs to the Glossary & Norms Space on regulation, norms and engineering. Entries here link to one only where a method is also an established tool of documentation or quality work, such as the five whys or a user’s mental model.