an attempt to a generic problem-solving...

An attempt to a generic problem-solving toolbox

Ecco – June 12th, 2008

ECCO - June 12th, 2008 Slide 2

Table of content

1. My background2. Goal of this seminar3. Problem-solving lacks recognition4. Why this lacking recognition : some suggestions5. Interesting elements of problem-solving

1. Pandora problem-solving “algorithm” : the process

2. Non Zero organisation : the problem-solving environment/behaviour

6. Some initial results - experiments7. What next?

1. Key question : what to change?

2. Need for a research programme?

8. Discussion


1. My background

Problem-Solving

and Decision-Making

Research

Test cases :Unsolved problems

in society

The Ultimate

Problem-Solving

Toolbox

Product

Development

and

Innovation

Consultancy

Front-End

of

Innovation

[email protected]

www.nonzeroratio.com

www.pietholbrouck.be


Toolbox of the hands ...

�

... Toolbox of the brain

?

2. Goal of this seminar ... Exploring a way

to make problem-solving a recognised discipline


3. Problem-solving lacks recognition

If :

“All life is problem-solving” (Popper)

Then :

Why is the problem-solving process so invisible in our world?


Despite the clear need :– Terrorism, global warming, environment, energy crisis, food crisis, wars,

national security, economical challenges, retirement issues, ...

• No clear problem-solving process followed => no quality control• No course in problem-solving at school• No “Master in problem-solving”

Consider this : • Janis’ Groupthink impact on politicians?• What do we expect solutions from : from persons or processes?• If you say to a CEO or politician that you are a good problem-solver,

what will (s)he think?

3. Problem-solving lacks recognition (2)


4. Why this lacking recognition : some suggestions

• Inefficiency of problem-solving process• World is based upon “expertise”

• Expertise closely related to “ego” (both individual and group)

• Problem-solving is the opposite of expertise

• Feyerabend : “anything goes”• Ashby : maximize means of control => as any process is

inherently limiting the options, one cannot find a “one-fit all process”?

• Science insufficiently recognizes problem-solving as process : insufficient recognition of relevance of “managing in uncertainty”


What is problem-solving?

Problem-Solving � Expertise

(re-normalisation) (normalisation)

When expertise fails, one needs problem-solving.

Problem-solving is the discipline everybody needs


Problem-solving : when all else fails

AverageProcessEfficiency

Expertise Applyingproblem-solving

Low

High

... Our natural mode = applying expertise

When to swap fromapplying expertise toapplying problem-solving?When expertise fails ...

But : anchoring (Kahneman))


Innovation Mindset �� Operations Mindset(Learning mode) (Expert mode)

Expert EGO

Learning EGO

CHILD ADULT

Learning EGO

Expert EGO

Limited ExpertiseMainly Learning Module:Question everythingWhy ... Why ... Why ...

Innovation >> Operations

Extensive ExpertiseMainly Expert Mode:Don't question why ...

Innovation << Operations


When to switch from expertise to problem-solving?

Time thatmany expertshave unsuccessfullytried to come tostable agreement

Probability that ashared convictionprevents the findingof a stable solution

Conclusion : Whenexpertise hasfailed to generate asolution over a long time, it becomestime to seeksolutions that« renormalise »through paradigmshifts that defyshared convictions!

A math metaphor


The relation between uncertainty, control and hierarchy

Production Projects Problems

Decreasingcontrol over time

Increasingimportance of- uncertainty- system understanding- learning

InnovationFuzzy-Front-End

Strategy

Increasing uncertainty

= increasing variation

⇒Need for more control means

Ashby’s law of requisite variety …


5. Interesting elements of a problem-solving toolbox

• Problem-solving versus decision-making

• Decision-making in uncertainty

• Logic mapping : TOC-TP

• The role of norms and local-global ego


Problem-solving and decision-making

• If a problem is solved, no decision-making is needed …

• Problem-solving tools need to be complemented by decision-making tools (paralysis by analysis) : next session


Cognitive errors in decision-making...

• Kahneman - Tversky

• Cognitive thinkingerrors(anchoring, …)

• Cfr. SCRIPTS decision-making procedure (Murnighan & Mowen)


2. Cause finding : Beware the Illusions of Causality

• Illusory Correlation (not only hits!)

• Illusion of Control (overconfidence,

gamblers)

• Illusion of the Run (regression to the mean)

• Availability Bias (what comes to mind easier)

• Illusion of Performance (if bad : cause is

found external, if good result : cause internal)

• Fundamental Attribution Error (cause in a

person rather than situational)

• Hindsight Bias


• “The art of High-

Stakes Decision-M

aking”, J.K.

Murnighan, J.C.

Mowen, 2002, John

Wiley & Sons


1. SCRIPTS : Search for Signals of Threats and opportunities

• Failure to identify opportunities early leads to problems in the future: signal recognition

• Staying ahead of the power curve

– The longer one waits to take action, the more difficult to get on top of the power curve

– In the zone of false hope : too late

Severityof problem

Time

Low

High

Extremelyhigh

Tippingpoint

Zone offalse hope

E.g. Disruptive Innovations : signals in many cases disregarded; cfr. Christensen.When finally signals are sufficiently strong, the companies find themselves in theZone of False Hope


1. Search for Signals of T&O : Triggers

MissedOpportu-nity

Hit

CorrectReject

Needless Blunder

Win

Loose

ActualOutcomeat Time 2

Decision at Time 1

Don'tAct

Act as if aProblem Exists

Evidence for acting

Low Medium Strong

Hair trigger for actionLower probability of Missed Opportunity (MO)When Value of MO >> Value of NB

Missed Opportunity Hit

Correct Rejection

NeedlessBlunder

Win

Loose

ActualOutcomeat Time 2

Decision at Time 1

Don'tAct

Act

Evidence for acting

Low Medium Strong

Sticky trigger for actionLower probability of Needless Blunder NBWhen Value of NB >> Value of MO

Beware the overconfidence bias : we tend to be systematically overconfident when we face moderate to extremely difficult tasks


Mapping logic: Miller 7+-2 =>Goldratt thinking processes


Thinking Processes : Outline

General outline

1. Evaporating Cloud or Current Reality Tree

• Starting from a conflict (Evaporating Cloud)

• Starting from undesirable effects (Current RT)

2. Search for an « injection » : Mapping and questioning of underlying assumptions to break the logic

3. Constructing a Future Reality Tree upon changed assumptions to verify validity of assumed solution

4. Identification / trimming of Negative Branches

Additional tools

Transition Tree (outlining process to change from CRT to FRT)

Prerequisite Tree (useable to construct project plans)


Summary - Overview

Action

Injection

Action

From PreRequisite Tree

IntermediateObjective


Action

From Future Reality Tree

The commonobjective

requirementfor C

requirementfor B

requirementfor A

requirementfor A

A

B

C

D

D'D cannotco-existwith D'

Sequence : D => D' => B => C => A => Building blocks check

Injection

UndesirableEffect

Undesirableeffect

UndesirableEffect

UndesirableEffectEffect

UndesirableEffect

CoreProblem

ObjectiveOpposite of

Undesirable Effect


Undesirable Effect


Undesirable Effect


Undesirable Effect

Injection

Objective ofcloud

Injection

Injection

From Evaporating Cloud

From CRT




Injection


Injection

From FRTInjection

Obstacle

Obstacle Obstacle Obstacle

ObstacleObstacle

What to change?

To what to change?

How to cause the change

Current Reality TreeMap logic behind problem

Evaporating CloudFind Ejection

Future Reality TreeVerify ejection

Prerequisite TreeTo create implementationroad map

Transition TreeTo define detailed action plans


Thinking Processes : The Bricks

1. Sufficient cause

I have to makea task duration

estimate

I want to bejudged asreliable

I include a safetymargin in my taskduration estimate

And-connector

Cause

Effect

We lower ourprices

More customersbuy our product

Cause

Effect


Thinking Processes : The Bricks

Level 1Level 2

Cause

Effect

EntityExistence

EntityExistence?

?

Cause

Effect

CausalityExistence?

Cause

Effect

Clarity?

Cause

Effect

New Cause

?

Additional Cause

Cause

Effect

New Cause

?

Insufficient Cause

Cause

Effect New Effect

?Predicted Effect

2. Legitimate Reservations


Thinking Processes : Modules

Evaporating Cloud

The commonobjective

requirementfor C

requirementfor B

requirementfor A

requirementfor A

A

B

C

D

D'D cannotco-existwith D'

Sequence : D => D' => B => C => A => Building blocks check

Injection


Problem-solving toolbox Theory of Constraints (TOC) Thinking Processes (TP)

Ref. literature• Thinking for a change,

putting the TOC Thinking Processes to use – Lisa Scheinkopf, 1999

• What is this thing called Theory of Constraints –Eliyahu Goldratt; 1990

• It’s not luck – Eliyahu Goldratt, 1994

Supporting toolsFlowchart s/w (SmartDraw –

Visio - …) -post-its&whiteboard –Pen&Paper


Labyrinth Metaphor Unwanted effect=


Tree metaphor

Unwanted effects

= dead ends= end branches

1 split back= incremental innovation

Many splits back= radical innovation


Goldratt Thinking Processes

UndesirableEffect

Undesirableeffect

UndesirableEffect

UndesirableEffectEffect

UndesirableEffect

CoreProblem

• Visualisation of cause-effect logic

• Miller 7+-2

• Complexity

Preprocessor : meetings/interviews => mindmap notes

Best tyre

Good shock

absorptionFilled with air

No leakage Not filled with air

•From Different UnderstandingTo Integrated Understanding


John Nash “A beautiful mind”

The Relevance of WIN - WIN


The onset of communication breakdown :

negative convictions arise due to polarisation

• Negative convictions “grow” in case of local optimisation (no win-win) but are considered as real (due to evidence)

• Compare with optical illusion : sensor-signal interaction

• Negative convictions can be considered a brain-signal interaction caused by lack of problem-solving ability (no win-win found / sought)

• Optimal problem-solving capacity leads to “leadership in uncertainty”

Lack of problem-solving => no win-win => Negative conviction

=> communication breakdown =< local optimisation => win-win impossible


Local optimisations induce “segmentation”

• Segmentation = different local optimizations, each local optimization taking a different starting point, leading to different types of solution

• Segments develop structures that tend to sustain themselves• Each segment has its distinct advantage(s) and disadvantage(s)• If segmentation exists, one can identify an ideal final solution as the

solution that combines all advantages of the different segments while having no disadvantage; related to ideal final solution:

– TRIZ

– TOC (mapping of logic behind desirable and undesirable effects)

– Stephen Covey 2nd habbit : begin with the end in mind

– The Ideal Final Solution will have properties mixed from several segments

• Segmentation is the natural consequence of initial local random decisions and insufficient evolution towards win-win due to anchoring and “local results first” that will tend to work against global optimisation (against transition!) due to the undesirable “uncertainty” to cope with


Synchronized evolution path to go from local optimisation (“segments”) to global optimisation

• From complex systems theory

• Changing / modifying entire segments and their structure leads to :– Need to synchronize (Crf. Steven Strogatz)

– Evolution to ideal final solution over consecutive steps “next-adjacent-possible” (Cfr. Stuart Kauffmann)

• To what to evolve to ? Answer is given by segmentation analysis : construction of the Ideal Solution (=best imaginable) from all available segment knowledge


The “logic of the absurd”“The structure of scientific revolutions”, Thomas Kuhn, 1962

growing awarenessof anomaly that doesnot fit normal view

Normalview

Newparadigm

Consensus Disagreement/ crisis

growing awarenessof improved paradigm

Progress throughdevelopment ofnormal paradigm

Progress of developmenttowards new paradigmthat can become the new "normal" paradigm

REVOLUTION(short time span)

NORMAL EVOLUTION(longer time span)


Nurture the ability to doubt

• Go counter to “normal” views– “normal” = considered to be the norm = accepted

– Several force fields support normal views:• Anchoring (Kahneman et. Al.) : anchoring to starting point

• Groupthink (Janis) : effect of group on individual

• Principle of least effort (Zipf) : why would we leave normal view?

• Language (Korzybski, General Semantics)“the map is not the territory”

– Consider any conviction to be potentially false : defy shared norms

• New solution = select and explore an “abnormal” view and find/develop a “normalised logic” that supports the abnormal view


Introduction to Non Zero Ratio : what?

• Tool to solve the toughest problems

• Two conjugate parts:– PANDORA Problem-Solving toolbox/process

– Non Zero Behaviour : Specification of the environment (attitude) needed to “run”PANDORA

• Non Zero Organisation / Society

• Integrating existing insights


Pandora toolbox

• Problem Analysing Non-destructive DerivativeOrganic Renormalising Algorithm

• Pandora is an algorithm, no heuristic : solution finding is ensured as a constructedsolution based upon a derivative process

• Mythological : 1. The outcome of Pandora is a surprise

2. What is currently still caught in the Pandora Box (hope) is released


What makes Non Zero Ratio different?

• Distillation / selection of the finest sets of insights and tools relevant especially to toughest problems, leading to focus on the process rather than on the players

• Builds upon:– Goldratt’s Theory Of Constraints – Thinking Processes

– Kahneman’s results on our Decision-Making in uncertainty

– John Nash’ win-win theorem

– Sync – complexity – evolution theories

– Altshuller’s TRIZ concepts

– Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

– Derivatives

– Kotter, Senge, Coleman, …

– Whatever is relevant to problem-solving


PANDORA process

Undesirable

EffectUndesirable

effect

UndesirableEffect

Undesirable

EffectEffect

Undesirable

Effect

Core

Problem

Search for weak signals that support theopposite of the starting assumptions

Logic Eclipse

Eclipse mode lowers threshold for detection of “weak signals”During solar eclipse : stars are visible : matter of “contrast”, or signal to noise ratio


=> The Non Zero Organisation

Non Zero organisation = organisation that is ideally suited to deal with problem-solving

� Opposite to organisation ideally suited to deal with production/operations

Components:

1. Individual behaviour

2. Organisational behaviour


Emerging nomenclature

Definitions:• Ego : set of past experience and current models of understanding• Intuition on a topic : the outcome of the voting process by brain

neurons, based upon past experience and current models of understanding.– In this definition, it is impossible to act against one’s own intuition.

– It is possible to affect the outcome of the “voting process” by acquiring new models of understanding

• Respect for another person: not having a negative conviction about that person

• Negative conviction : property one would not want to have one-self• Angriness : inability of one’s set of convictions to master a situation;

identifies the need to revise one’s set of convictions and switch to problem-solving mode aiming at win-win


Validation of Non Zero Ratio?

• Must succeed in providing solutions to hitherto

unsolved problems

• => Test-demo cases in different categories:

– Renormalisation: anti-smoking campaigns, language,.

– Segmentation: traffic jam

– Filters of certainty

– Decision-making

– …


Some applications


Spelling rule discussionsPannekoek of pannenkoek?


Files?


What could we learn from Non-Zero Ratio in the case of traffic congestion?

• Win-win : identify stakeholders. If traffic

congestion is solved, who would loose? =>

Public transport! : Tug-of-war : find win-win

• Segments : cars, public transport, trucks,

boats, airplanes, …

1. Construct Ideal Final Solution

2. Find evolutive “next-adjacent-possible” path.


Example : transport solutions

+

-


From segmentation/undesirable effects

to ideal final solution

Car transport : Undesirable effects

• No alcohol (=> not possible to drive to parties with alcohol)

• Good eye-sight needed (=>elder, blind)

• Attention needed (=> accidents)

• Skill needed (=> accidents)

Public transport (bus-train) : undesirable effects

• Less-flexible in timing

• Not end-to-end

Derived Ideal Final Solution : combine all positives; drop the negatives

• Automated driving (alcohol, blind, no attention/skill, flexible, end-to-end)


From Ideal Final Solution

to Next Adjacent Possible

What key feature / advantage of the ideal final solution could already add economic value today ?

• At traffic congestion points it is already now desirable to mix car and train properties:

– If clusters of cars could now behave as a train, the throughput at congestion points would significantly increase

• How? … …


How to accomplish the next-adjacent-possible?

Suggestion for the “next-adjacent-possible”:

• ALL (!) cars equipped with cruise-control that acts upon distance to car before

– How to establish : synchronisation to have add-on to all cars

• Local infrastructure modified to avoid lane crossings at traffic congestion points

• Mix stakeholders : public transport + car (to avoid forcing public transport in a “loose” position)

Note how abnormal (absurd) this direction is …

But also, how “normal” : as long as “attention” of the driver is required, car accidents will happen : the path towards safety is into “automating” the driving process


What about the feasibility?

• Technical : OK• Financial?

Cost:– Belgium : 5.000.000 cars x 2 k€/car=10.000 M€ cost to install

system– + modifications to infrastructure …Return?– Cost of traffic congestion : 2002, Belgium : about 500 M€– Other elements :

• Car accidents : 12.000 M€/yr (only partially to traffic jams)• Injuries and deaths

ROI ranges from over 20 yrs ((10.000+X)/500) to far shorter


Traffic jam threat as major opportunity

• From “Scripts” (Murnighan & Mowen) : missed opportunities if we don’t do:

– cities can maximize traffic throughput at rush hours rerouting traffic circulation

– Car drivers can decide to use also in non-traffic congestion areas– Learn to co-operate between segments (public transport – cars –

infrastructure – government – industry – individuals …)

– Learn to manage a massive synchronisation project

– Development of new products with economic boost (jobs, export, automotive subsystem leader development, …)

– Recognition of Flanders/Belgium as world-wide leader

– Potential to extend this synchronisation to next steps (next-adjacent-possible), such as control of steering

• Concluding : SCRIPTS leads to “do it”, especially as expected car accidents (costing 12.000 M€/yr) can be expected to be dramatically reduced


Concluding

Of course, there are obstacles, but:• What are they? Can they be overcome?• Isn’t the direction of the solution evident, in the end?• Isn’t the exercise besides exciting, potentially extremely learningful

with strong economical, political and social potential?• Why should we NOT take the opportunity?• What next?


Antismoking campaigns increase lung cancer!?


• Discussion !

an attempt to a generic problem-solving...

Documents