Dictatorships in Problem Solving
I’ve been fascinated with graphs and their use in analysis for a very long time. In studying optimization, the use of graphs for network optimization enthralled me with the potential for simplicity and speed of solutions using graphs. In studying communication and language the visual thesaurus (link) caught my eye many years ago with intuitive presentation of the relationships between words. More recently studying information theoretic modeling at Portland State University taught by Dr Martin Zwick (link). I recently stumbled upon a set of slides from lecture/presentation by Dr Zwick. The presentation was given at the Northwest Philosophy Conference, Washington State University Oct 5-7, 2017. There are many tidbits from the presentation that capture the use of graphs to communicate concepts. I’ve borrowed a few for this set of thoughts.
On slide 28 of the presentation Dr Zwick mentions another topic close to another of my passions, problem solving. My work in decisions analysis, decision support, predictive modeling, systems decision and systems maintenance, ‘problem solving’ is everywhere in those topics. In a sense each topic is a series of problems to be solved. Some with interesting complexities and values to be explained to others. When I saw Dr Zwicks’ representation of problem solving as a graph, I jumped at the thought of using it to help explain the value of these topics in analysis.
Dr Zwick describes problem solving as starting with “ground” (or the ‘here and now’) leads to “goal” (the aspirational ‘future’) then to the need for a “direction” (theory to help ‘solve’ the problem) that, in turn, leads to the “instrument” (the ‘tools’ to solve the problem). This fits nicely in describing walking someone through a problem from where they are today, what might their goals be, adding some theories for guidance of a solution and the tools to assist in going from today to their goal.
Failures in problem solving
Of course, problem solving is never as simple as walking through those steps from ground to instrument. On slides 33 and 34 of Dr Zwick's presentation he two types of describes failures; synchronic and diachronic. Synchronic is about the now (ignores time) and diachronic considers time in adaptive failure. Both of these apply perfectly to problem solving. While diachronic adaptive failures are interesting, synchronic description are apt for problem solving discussions.
The first step of defining what is establishes the base for problem solving. Errors in this step will propagate into the remainder of the steps. Identifying the goal takes creativity and is not easy. What ‘should’ be is often areas of divisive debates. My experience has been that while goals are debated, specifying how to achieve a goal is just as bad a divisive debate. Finally, after those debates, the implementation process can easily fail if the prior steps haven’t not been fully thought out or evaluated.
Diachronic failures over time, while many can be planned for, issues do arise. As Dr Zwick summarizes Jared Diamond discussion from failures in anticipation, failures to perceive, respond and be effective in use of instruments.
Failures in problem solving start with the planning process and need to evolve over time as new information becomes available. This makes problem solving interesting, complex and messy.
Aspects of problem solving and how they can rule over the others.
There are other way I’ve seen problem solving go sideways. These other ways can be characterized as “when the weight given to each node (ground, goal, direction & instrument, in the problem solving tetrad are not balanced.” Dr Zwicks presentation slide 24 / figure 8 provide me with a segway into ‘-isms’ in problem solving. Dr Zwick presents these fundamentalism with respect to society and balancing culture, polity, economy and community. The graphic illustrates how each aspect of society can dominate the others through ‘-ism’s of totalitarianism, nationalism, capitalism and theoracy. I believe this concept of dominating aspects in a tetrad relates to the problem solving aspects of ground, goal, direction and instrument as dictatorships that I’ve seen for each in problem solving.
Starting with ‘ground’ aspect of problem solving the primary issue I’ve encountered is the ‘Not Invented Here’ (NIH) organizational mentality. Coming in from outside a group or company easily starts with this issue. Many people like to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and solve their own problems. My career is often the person brought in because the analytical techniques required to address the problem, as seen by management, is beyond the group or company. Overcoming the dictatorship of NIH requires patience and tact in presenting solutions that the group or company can own in the long run and has direct value to their way of work. Essentially talk them into doing it themselves with your help.
Secondly in the problem solving tetrad is ‘goal’ and the dictatorship of vision. These are sitautions when an executive either has a very clear vision that is unrealistic or the other end of the scale where there is a lack of vision about at goal. These issues arise by personality differences and backgrounds of individuals. Consider the Peter Principal of rising to the level of incompetence. The Peter Principal has killed many very good solutions. I’ve found the best way to overcome both of these dictatorship of vision requires identifying the economics of the implementation. Economics of solutions helps those with a very broad vision and those who have little or none.
The next step in problem solving is direction can be dominated by the dictatorship of theory. I’ve run into this primarily in data mining situations. Often in the development of predictive models and analysis of data, there is a need to be able to explain the output. This operational relationship between theory and practice (see Figure 1, Slide 6 of Dr Zwicks) is one I’ve struggled with. I struggle with the balancing of theory and practice as I’m brought in to tackle this aspect of problem solving and I lean towards practical and less to theory. I respect theory as it’s the basis for science, but sometimes it gets in the way of practical. To over come the dictatorship of theory I like to balance the theory with the practical.
The final step of instruments of problem solving can dominate the others with the plethora of solution tools. As an implementor of solutions I have a broad background in tools ranging from analysis techniques, tools for analytic work, computer programming, and technology backbones for implementing analytics into organizations. With that background I have flexibility in implementing creative solutions to problem. It’s also a curse. I’ve encounter many people who love their tool for all solutions. I guess it’s the ‘to a hammer all problems look like a nail’ picture. The way I’ve overcome the dictatorship of tools is keep an eye on the effectiveness and implementation errors that can arise in using tools. (note how I tied to Dr Zwick’s adaptive failure w.r.t. to instruments ;-))
In effective problem solving, balancing the four aspects of ground, goal, direction and instrument is critical to preventing battles of dictatorships. Project battles are never good and ruin good solutions. Being aware of the dominance of any aspect over the others can keep solutions on tract for success.
