I think if you rely on a system or a group of humans, it's important that the process of reasoning about the problem and solutions is explicit and documented. The issue with a lot of problem solving is faulty assumptions and leaps in logic. If reasoning is made explicit, these can be identified and addressed. If they are not, the process can lead the group down a less effective and even detrimental path.
Unfortunately, you forgot the most import part of problem solving - identify the root, and if necessary, proximal cause(s).
You have a snow-ball's chance in Haiti of solving a problem where in the solution does not address the root cause. Any measure taken that does not address the root-cause is a band-aid or palliative action.
There have been lots and lots of problems solved without understanding or addressing the root causes. Even partial knowledge is very useful.
We agree that the goal should be to understand the root causes, and deeper knowledge, (the root is quantum mechanics, the multiverse and beyond, if we really addressed only the root causes then everything is just particle collisions. But is that very useful?) Our quest for the root cause is step 10 - seek to understand. Gain explanatory knowledge so the new solutions can be passed on and used elsewhere.
But understanding the root cause is not needed to solve most problems. Partial knowledge can solve problems too. You can stop the problem of cracking your head on rocks by wearing a helmet without understanding that gravity caused you to fall. However, seeking to understand all of that should be the goal of problem solving.
Name one problem solved without an understanding of the root cause. Anecdotally, this would be referred to as an answer by accident.
A complex problem may very well be an aggregation of multiple independent or dependent problems, a conglomeration of causes that can be parametrically analyzed using systems theory. Failure to address or even look for a root cause or conduct a parametric assessment is absolute foolery. The very first step in solving a problem is accurately and adequately stating it. From there, you have to assess all of the possible elements and drivers of observed behaviors and actions. It's recursive and iterative process.
And yes, understanding the problem is step one, we said that as our first commandment. But understanding the root isn't always needed.
Try to define "root" when describing a problem isn't easy. Like we mentioned layers of problems go all the way to the quantum level and particle collisions. That is the root of all problems. But not very useful when solving for the macro.
I see your point, it's a matter of refinement or abstraction.
I didn't see the comment on wearing a helmet, but I would surmise that the root cause in that scenario is not gravity, but rather collisions. That cause may be unavoidable, so then the scope changes the cause to collision impact. The helmet as a solution then has to consider the characterization of that impact and the necessary requirements to satisfy the undesirable outcome - concussion. The helmet as a solution is only viable if the helmet meets requirements for the associated impact. Strength, compression, resilience, hardness, fit etc... are all characteristics of the solution that need to be met. To state that wearing a helmet prevents concussions can be dangerous. What type of helmet?
You can see the same logic in the Mask mandates. N95, N100, Respirator, cotton cloth, and surgical are all different. None of which except maybe a respirator, actually protect the wearer since none protect the wearer from aerosols. Plus, any protection that they may offer wanes quickly due to other environmental factors such as humidity and moisture absorption. Additionally, when worn too long, they affect CO2 and O2 levels and collect potentially harmful bacteria that pose risks to the wearer.
The mask debacle is a perfect example of specifying a solution without understanding root cause. Any and all studies published on masks have been all bunk as none of them look at mask effectiveness from a physics based perspective. A semi-talented fluids engineer could have answered the mask effectiveness question very quickly.
I think this is a good list. We may sometimes find that assumed problems aren't really problems at all but just interpreted inappropriately.
11 : NEVER EVER try to solve a problem with the same mindset that created it in the 1st. place !!
For sure, you know whose quote this is.
Attributed to Einstein and he definitely thought like this, but old quotes are hard to attribute correctly sometimes. Either way, good advice.
I think if you rely on a system or a group of humans, it's important that the process of reasoning about the problem and solutions is explicit and documented. The issue with a lot of problem solving is faulty assumptions and leaps in logic. If reasoning is made explicit, these can be identified and addressed. If they are not, the process can lead the group down a less effective and even detrimental path.
In order to be results and metric driven, it is important to be clear. Good addition. We might go edit and add that....
THIS GETS AN F
Unfortunately, you forgot the most import part of problem solving - identify the root, and if necessary, proximal cause(s).
You have a snow-ball's chance in Haiti of solving a problem where in the solution does not address the root cause. Any measure taken that does not address the root-cause is a band-aid or palliative action.
There have been lots and lots of problems solved without understanding or addressing the root causes. Even partial knowledge is very useful.
We agree that the goal should be to understand the root causes, and deeper knowledge, (the root is quantum mechanics, the multiverse and beyond, if we really addressed only the root causes then everything is just particle collisions. But is that very useful?) Our quest for the root cause is step 10 - seek to understand. Gain explanatory knowledge so the new solutions can be passed on and used elsewhere.
But understanding the root cause is not needed to solve most problems. Partial knowledge can solve problems too. You can stop the problem of cracking your head on rocks by wearing a helmet without understanding that gravity caused you to fall. However, seeking to understand all of that should be the goal of problem solving.
Name one problem solved without an understanding of the root cause. Anecdotally, this would be referred to as an answer by accident.
A complex problem may very well be an aggregation of multiple independent or dependent problems, a conglomeration of causes that can be parametrically analyzed using systems theory. Failure to address or even look for a root cause or conduct a parametric assessment is absolute foolery. The very first step in solving a problem is accurately and adequately stating it. From there, you have to assess all of the possible elements and drivers of observed behaviors and actions. It's recursive and iterative process.
And yes, understanding the problem is step one, we said that as our first commandment. But understanding the root isn't always needed.
Try to define "root" when describing a problem isn't easy. Like we mentioned layers of problems go all the way to the quantum level and particle collisions. That is the root of all problems. But not very useful when solving for the macro.
Answers come in layers. There are always more if you stay curious.
We named one above. Wearing a helmet to prevent concussions. It solves a problem without understanding gravity.
I see your point, it's a matter of refinement or abstraction.
I didn't see the comment on wearing a helmet, but I would surmise that the root cause in that scenario is not gravity, but rather collisions. That cause may be unavoidable, so then the scope changes the cause to collision impact. The helmet as a solution then has to consider the characterization of that impact and the necessary requirements to satisfy the undesirable outcome - concussion. The helmet as a solution is only viable if the helmet meets requirements for the associated impact. Strength, compression, resilience, hardness, fit etc... are all characteristics of the solution that need to be met. To state that wearing a helmet prevents concussions can be dangerous. What type of helmet?
You can see the same logic in the Mask mandates. N95, N100, Respirator, cotton cloth, and surgical are all different. None of which except maybe a respirator, actually protect the wearer since none protect the wearer from aerosols. Plus, any protection that they may offer wanes quickly due to other environmental factors such as humidity and moisture absorption. Additionally, when worn too long, they affect CO2 and O2 levels and collect potentially harmful bacteria that pose risks to the wearer.
The mask debacle is a perfect example of specifying a solution without understanding root cause. Any and all studies published on masks have been all bunk as none of them look at mask effectiveness from a physics based perspective. A semi-talented fluids engineer could have answered the mask effectiveness question very quickly.