Problem Solving: Trial-and-Error vs. Creative Visualization

Problem-solving is one of the most vital skills in any profession, and it comes in many forms. Watching the video below, I couldn’t help but reflect on two distinct approaches to problem-solving that I’ve encountered in my career. The video showcases a simple yet profound demonstration of trial and error, where one tries to fit objects into spaces—relying on repetitive , linearly decided adjustments until the solution emerges; more specifically, the problem does not exist anymore. Two radically different end states. 

Trial-and-Error: The Linear Approach

In my early days as a mechanic, I often witnessed (and let's be honest… sometimes practiced) what I call "swap-tronics." When faced with a malfunctioning system, a percentage of mechanics would replace components in a linear sequence until the issue was resolved. For example, in diagnosing an aircraft electrical issue, one might start at the power source and swap out components following the diagram—power converters, relays, wiring harnesses—until the system works.

This method requires a solid understanding of where things are and how to access them, but it doesn’t necessarily demand a deep understanding of why the system operates the way it does. While effective, this approach can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. It’s akin to trying to fit puzzle pieces by attempting every possible combination until one works. This method favors specific system knowledge over theory knowledge and if executed on the same asset everyday can become very efficient. 

Creative Problem-Solving: Thinking in Three Dimensions

As I grew in my career, I learned to approach problems differently. Rather than relying solely on trial and error, I began visualizing systems in three dimensions, understanding how components interact and to try and predicting outcomes before touching a single part. For instance, instead of swapping out an entire series of components, one might isolate a specific subsystem using temporary bypasses or simulate conditions to provoke the fault. By doing so, you could pinpoint the issue and resolve it faster, using fewer resources. This approach favors theory knowledge over specific component system knowledge with a hint of mental mapping. It allows for creative problem-solving such as finding ways to trick a system into isolating faults or identifying root causes without extensive disassembly. This ideology thrives where problem solvers are limited while problems are plentiful and dynamic. 

A Tale of Two Approaches

The video demonstrates both approaches in action. The players rely on trial and error, asking, “Does this fit?” It’s effective to a point but limited. What if, instead, they had created a lightweight model of the object they were working with or scaled the problem down to a tabletop version? By creatively reimagining the problem, they could have tested solutions more efficiently and effectively. This is where the human mind shines! Unlike a computer, which excels at brute-force calculations, humans possess creativity. 

Play to Your Strengths

So What: Our ability to think beyond the linear and into the abstract is what sets us apart. Never hide your creativity when solving problems. Whether you lean on trial and error or thrive in creative visualization, remember that problem-solving isn’t just about finding answers—it’s about how you approach the question.

Do not be the ant… visualize, adapt, and innovate!