Problem Type OverviewDefinitions and issues for all 6 problem types
|
|||||||||
For each of the brief definitions provided below, just click on the graphic for a more detailed description of that problem type. |
|||||||||
|
Issues: We are so comfortable with Puzzle problems that we often over use the category. The linear, rational process for puzzle problem solving can be seductively attractive precisely when the emotional, interpersonal issues are dominant. And that also means other problem types are probably more appropriate. The main challenges are ensuring the problem solvers have a stable definition of the problem, the requisite skills, and a clean group process. |
||||||||
|
Issues: These problems require attention to an eventual audience (employees, investors, customers, directors, regulators, etc.) but also looking beyond what that audience might be able to articulate. They should be inspired by the final outcome, but also surprised by it. The other major concern is how to leverage a group, when the essential activity is typically private. A group composition of a vision statement is usually a bland compromise; an individual vision statement has the potential for being bold and innovative. |
||||||||
|
ISSUES: By their very nature, these problems require making assumptions about an unknowable future; the process is fragile and easily attacked, but it is also essential. Assuming there is only one possible future would be the worst possible choice. Writing compelling scenarios is the essential kernel of this problem type, and it is a rare skill. The pressure to settle on just the most likely scenario will be intense, and it will challenge the leader to keep the group attentive to multiple futures. Be careful not to confuse uncertainty in the observer with uncertainty in the world; just because we are confused does not mean the world is random. Sometimes we just have not done our homework. |
||||||||
|
ISSUES: It requires a mind shift to see "one dilemma" instead of "two goals", but until we make the perceptual shift, it is extremely hard to envision the synergy required for managing a dilemma. Without that insight, people only work for a compromise, which will leave both sides unsatisfied. Since there is no permanent resolution, the process for exploring options and for learning from experience becomes more important than the actual "solution" proposed for the present. Ongoing management requires a relationship among people who used to be antagonistic to each other; a sense of respect and mutual regard is essential. This is very different from the relationship we might seek in a Dispute, which is the other problem type often confused with a true dilemma. |
||||||||
|
ISSUES: In other problem types, it is appropriate to seek a solution; in this problem type, we strive for a safe forum where the participants can find their own solution. The neutral facilitator becomes more critical than the subject matter expert. Without the safe forum for negotiation, the players will be tempted to pursue political solutions. Once the appropriate forum and norms are established, it is usually possible to bring all the players to the table and explore the interests behind their opening bargaining positions. If they can find a joint solution, they still have to create a structure for enforcing compliance among possibly reluctant parties. |
||||||||
|
ISSUES: Complex systems are fundamentally unknowable. We can capture trends and patterns, but they are mostly heuristic, and never exhaustive. We can "nudge" a system, but we cannot totally control it or drive a specific solution. A complex system will "answer back", and often with a message we did not expect. The difficulty in observing systems is remember that we are in the system, not outside of it. Our observations and learnings change the system, so it is no longer what we thought it was. Attempts at fixing a problem also change the system. It is an ever shifting target. |