hypothesis-driven problem solving - · pdf file2 2006-01-30 hypothesis-driven problem solving...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Hypothesis-driven problem solving
define & refine
strategy consulting
business integration
tangible results
2
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 2 of 39
The Labyrinth Problem
• Most effective way to solve a labyrinthproblem?
• Usually to start from the goal...
• ...this is the main ideabehind hypothesis-drivenproblem solving
Start
Goal
3
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 3 of 39
Agenda
• Part 1: About Monator– Core business, clients...
• Part 2: Our approach to problem solving– General framework, problem solving tools, how can you use
this for your paper...
• Part 3: Our approach to HCI– Usability value context, Soft System Methodology,
Excercises...
• Part 4: Conclusions
4
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 4 of 39
Key issues
• Understand the big picture• Careful problem formulation• Starting from the end will save time
5
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 5 of 39
What does Monator do?
• Gothenburg-based Management and IT Consultancy firm
• Core business– Help our clients define and refine their businesses
• Areas of work1) Strategy consulting2) Business integration
6
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 6 of 39
Our Clients
• Growth-oriented small and midsized companies• Examples:
Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) solution
7
Part 2
Our approach to problem solving
8
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 8 of 39
A general framework
Hypothesis-driven & fact-based problem solving
1. What’s the problem?
2. What’s probably a solution?
3. Analyze facts and data behind the problem
4. Present the solution
primary focus today
9
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 9 of 39
1. What’s the problem?
• Identify and isolate the core problem
• MECE approach– Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive– Concept formulated by McKinsey & Co– Helps you identify non-overlapping boundaries of the
problem
• MECE for crossing a river– Mutually Exclusive: taking the bridge or the boat– Collectively Exhaustive: all valid options for crossing the river
10
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 10 of 39
Tools: Logic trees (1)
• Logic tree break down– Shows the relations between the components of
the problem
Profits
Revenues
Costs
Customers
Prices
Products
Fixed
Variable
...
...
...
...
...
11
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 11 of 39
Tools: Logic trees (2)
• Turn to the person next to you.
• Use the Logic trees approach to identify the components of the following problem:– Your car has stopped due to an engine failure
• Take notes of your discussions
12
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 12 of 39
2. What’s probably a solution?
• Suggest a hypothesis for a solution – Will help your data gathering and analysis
• Disaggregate the issues – What issues have to be fulfilled in order for the
hypothesis to be valid?
– Visualize with logic tree break downs
13
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 13 of 39
Tools: The 5 Whys method (1)
• Made popular by Toyota in the 1970s
• Helps to quickly determine the root cause of a problem
• Easy to learn and apply
• Start at the end result and work backward (toward the rootcause) continually asking ”Why?”
14
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 14 of 39
Tools: The 5 Whys method (2)
Problem: Unsatisfied client
1. Why is our client unhappy?- Because we did not deliver our services on time.
2. Why were we unable to meet the agreed-upon timeline?- The job took much longer than we thought.
3. Why did the job take longer?- Because we underestimated the complexity of the job.
4. Why did we underestimate the complexity of the job?- We made a quick estimate of the time needed to complete it, and did not list the individual stagesneeded to complete the project.
5. Why did we not do this?- Because we were running behind on other projects
Root cause: We need to review our time estimation and specification procedures
15
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 15 of 39
Tools: The 5 Whys method (3)
• Turn to the person next to you.
• Use the 5 Whys method to find the root causeto the following problem:– One of you has failed your HCI exam
• Take notes of your discussions
16
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 16 of 39
Tools: Reverse brainstorming
• Traditional brainstorming: – “How do I solve or prevent this problem”
• Reverse brainstorming: – “How can I possibly cause this problem”
• Surprisingly powerful technique
• Be sure to follow the basic “rules” of brainstorming – Allow ideas to flow freely, don’t reject anything…
17
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 17 of 39
3. Analyze facts and data behind the problem
• Data gathering– First decide what data is needed to prove the
hypothesis– AND what is not needed!
• Analysis– Analyze the data to prove or disprove the
hypothesis– If the facts disprove your hypothesis, change your
hypothesis
18
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 18 of 39
4. Present the solution
• In many cases your presentation is your solution– The value in your solution will only be extracted if
you are able to explain/sell your ideas to your client
• Tailor your presentation to your audience– What issues are critical for reaching client buy-in?
19
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 19 of 39
How can you use this for your paper?
• Choose a topic and get familiarized with the domain
• Carefully formulate your research question– Will save you time
• Find an initial hypothesis from the start– Start from the goal and disaggregate all issues– Try to build your case from start to finish before beginning to
work on your report (i.e. before splitting up the work)
• Conduct your analysis and present your ideas in your paper
20
Part 3
Our approach to HCI
21
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 21 of 39
Usability Value Contexts
Save development costs
Save development time
Reduce maintenance costs
Decrease support costs
Reduce training/documentation costIncrease success rate and reduce user error
Increase efficiency/productivity
Increase ease of use
Increase ease of learning
Increase trust in systems
Increase user satisfactionIncrease revenue
Increase transactions/purchases
Retain customers
Attract more customers
Increase market share
Increase job satisfaction/decrease job turnover
22
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 22 of 39
Traditional methodology (1)
Systems Engineering
• A well-defined world
• Technology-oriented
• (Hard) Problems havedefinite solutions
• One can define specificgoals to be achieved
• But?
Where does it bite the dust?
• Soft Problems
• Hard to define
• Interaction: human(s) ↔technology
23
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 23 of 39
Traditional methodology (2)
Implementation brings about other problems to be solved
9. Implement option
Choice (politics, power, equity)8. Choose to implement the most relevant option
Are these feasible/achievable/within budget?7. Test these options
What would the options be like?6. Develop options
How will we know when we have achieved change?
5. Formulate measures of performance
How would we get there?4. Generate ways of meeting objectives
Where would we like to be?3. Identify objectives and constraints
Where are we now?2. Analyze existing situation and relevant systems
What needs to change?1. Define the problem
Questions to be answeredStages
24
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 24 of 39
Soft Systems Methodology (1)
• Focuses on planning• Incorporates people and technology• Not finding a solution to a specific problem
– Instead understanding the situation
• Several problems may exist– but we do not know which one we are interested in
until analysis has been made
• Different view per stakeholder– BUT! contradiction is not default per say
25
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 25 of 39
Soft Systems Methodology (2)
• Not for goal-oriented achievers– “goals” are seldom reached
• The objective of SSM– To provide a learning methodology to support
discussion on desirable and feasible changes of a system (and/or an organization)
• Applying SSM in HCI engineering– Establish purpose, people, constraints and
developing conceptual models of ideal system
26
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 26 of 39
Keywords of SSM
• Stakeholder analysis• Rich picture
– Visualizing problem expression
• Root definition (using CATWOE criteria)– Core of human activity to be modeled– Brief statement concerning an activity– Defining the “Whats”
• Conceptual model– Defining the “Hows”
27
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 27 of 39
Overview of SSMPossible generation of new SSM processes
(iterations)
28
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 28 of 39
SSM applied – CATWOE analysis
• Multiple uses– Consideration of elements applicable to root definition
• ”The letters”– Client (or Customer)
– Actor
– Transformation
– World view (Weltanschauung)
– Owner
– Environment
• GOAL: Find the Root Definition
Recall the definition of RD: “Core of human
activity to be modeled”
29
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 29 of 39
The C & A in CATWOE
Clients
• Who are the system beneficiaries
• Example (Ladok):– People taking classes at
Chalmers
Actor
• Who transform inputs to outputs
• Example:– Lecturer
30
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 30 of 39
The T & W in CATWOE
Transformation• The process from inputs
into outputs• Approach through the
5E’s criteria– Efficacy, Efficiency,
Effectiveness, Ethicality, Elegance
• Example:– Take exam records and
turn into knowledge of students of Chalmers
World view• The perspective from
which a root definition is formed
• Example:– Efficient management of
students info is vital for the success of the school
31
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 31 of 39
The O & E in CATWOE
Owner
• The person(s) who has commissioned the system (and with power of veto)
• Example:– The Head Master of
Chalmers
Environment
• The need(s) to be considered/factors affecting the environment.
• Example:– Applicable laws and
regulations on information storage and privacy
32
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 32 of 39
Concluding schematic example
• A system is owned by O
• To do W by A
• By means of T
• Given the contraints of E
• In order to achieve x for C
Optional home assignment: Develop critics of earlier shown example
33
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 33 of 39
Exercises – Problem Solving & SSM
First exercise– Objective:
• Using Hypothesis-based problem solving & CATWOE analysis to do a preliminary study of a system solution
– Preferable prerequisites:• Lecture notes
Second exercise– Objective:
• Using 1st exercise’s case to find parameters influencingsystem usability
– More info to come…
34
Part 4
Conclusions
35
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 35 of 39
What we have talked about today
General frameworkHypothesis-drivenHelpful tools
Problem situation-orientationInteraction – People vs. TechnologySuitable for Business Applications
Basics ofProblem Solving
Soft SystemMethodology
Heuristics,Design Principles,
etc.
• Understand the big picture• Careful problem formulation• Starting from the end will save time
36
Thanks for listening!
Good luck with your papers & exam
Questions?
For more information about Monator please visit http://www.monator.com
37
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 37 of 39
Extras – Example of a root definition: CRM
Organizational definition
A professionally manned system in a small or medium-sizedcompany which enables the company to manage and enhance customer relations in order to facilitate long-termbusiness success
CRM Software System definition
A software system which holdsrelevant information, supports the coordination of business processes and enables CRM performance management in order to company professionalswithin sales, support and general management to effciently perform activitiesrelated to customer relations.
38
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 38 of 39
Extras – The 5E’s framework
• Efficacy– Do the means work to justify the ends?
• Efficiency– Are essential resources being considered?
• Effectiveness– Does the T help the realization of longer term goals related
to the O’s potential?
• Ethicality– Is T a proper thing to do?
• Elegance– Is T aesthetically pleasing?
39
2006-01-30 Hypothesis-driven problem solving Slide 39 of 39
Extras – Conceptual model
• Describes and specifies– The major design metaphors and analogies
employed in the design, if any
– The concepts the system exposes to users
– The relationships between these concepts
– The mappings between the concept and the task-domain the system is designed to support
(Adapted from Johnson & Henderson)