Solving Complex Problems
0
Preface
Problems First?
Why another handbook? On relevance, contents, and general comprehensibility
1
Deficient states
Problems First!
No solution? No problem!
What do we mean by complexity?
The constituent parts of a problem
The deficient state A[-]
The target state B[+]
The unknown measures M?
Shifting problems
Conclusion
Working aid
2
Mechanisms of action and propositions
A map of solutions
The interrelation between causes and measures during problem-solving
A note on the issue of causality
Cause – measure – consequences – assessment
A useful working aid: the map of solutions
Practical guidelines for the map of solutions
An example of implementation: plastic waste
The bundle of measures
Working aids/possible error sources
Conclusion
3
Search space extensions
Major and minor tools
Concepts
Attributes of concepts and their relevance
Working aids
Approach
4
The finer tools: guarantors, restrictions, arenas, agendas, forecasts
Guarantors
Restrictions
Arena and agenda
Forecasts
5
Cognitive traps
I think, therefore I err …
Recurring traps
Cognitive traps during teamwork
Conclusion
6
Concluding remarks
Working aids
On chapter 1
On chapter 2
On chapter 3
On chapter 4
On chapter 5
“… for those who want to read more …”
Bibliography
0
PREFACE
Problems First?
The core task of planners is to solve complex problems. This book contains the essence of a versatile problem-solving strategy developed at a faculty of architecture and urban planning in the context of educating professional planners. It also makes this knowledge accessible to other professional groups, including politicians, managers, experts from other disciplines, and to all those handling complex problems in their fields of work.
The efficacy of this problem-solving strategy was demonstrated in a research project which was supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), and in cooperation with ergonomists of Dresden University of Applied Sciences, following numerous successful applications in practice and teaching. The sequencing and outcomes of this project are summarized in the essay “Die Kunst des Problemlösens. Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Trainings im Lösen komplexer Planungsprobleme” (in: disP 185, 2/2011; p. 14-26) by Walter L. Schönwandt et al. The theoretical foundation of this approach to complex problem situations was published by Ashgate Publishing Company a few years ago (in Planning in Crisis? by Walter L. Schönwandt, Aldershot, 2008). In a subsequent step, these theoretical foundations were transformed into practical instructions and were made accessible, including to other disciplines and readers, in the form of a user-friendly handbook. In contrast to a specialist or even scientific publication, the objective here was to create a handbook which is useful for addressing many types and dimensions of problem situations. To achieve this, several measures have been taken:
• Rather than providing lengthy descriptions on the existing philosophical and (planning) theory-related background as well as the current level of research, these issues have been explained on a point-by-point basis as and when required.
• Complicated facts and circumstances have, in part, been greatly simplified in the interest of comprehensibility. Put differently, in contrast to standard scientific practice where footnotes containing additional information are expected and inserted, this handbook has deliberately omitted footnotes to prevent fears of contact and permit greater clarity. Descriptive visual elements in the text make the book even user-friendlier.
• Examples referring to architecture and spatial planning have been translated and supplemented for interdisciplinary and everyday life applications, providing universal working aids.
Why another handbook?
On relevance, contents, and general comprehensibility
How does a handbook on solving complex problems go from being a full-bodied promise to being a practical toolbox?
By avoiding pretentious slogans, alleged panaceas, and non-transferable “onesize-fits-all approaches” for all unedifying things; and by providing instead several practical and pragmatic techniques for widening deliberation, solution, and maneuvering spaces that can be applied across disciplinary boundaries without the need for second academic degrees or the like. This is also achieved by consciously avoiding wishy-washy strategies for attaining short-term (and shortsighted) solutions, and by rather providing concrete working aids that can be applied to various questions, even without further limiting the scope of deliberations to a certain topic or specific type of “problem”.
Readers can use this handbook like a toolbox, equipped with a whole set of “tools” and techniques that help to approach and work on complicated, unclear problems with a view to arrive at improved solutions. These tools are also useful when circumstances are muddled in a given problem-solving process. They are diverse and complement each other; they don’t presuppose a fixed sequence of application. Should, at some point, a problem-solving process stall, or new, unforeseen developments (rather inevitably) arise during the course of work, these tools help bring about a rethink and provide guidance after deviating from the original plan.
The tools are suited to appropriately react to new insights that may emerge during the course of a problem-solving process. They cannot simply be assembled into a ready solution following an instruction manual as is common, for example, in a construction kit; they’re not a panacea and cannot be applied following a blind routine. They’re multifunctional working aids leveraging specific neuralgic points in different combinations and sequences which are found across cultural, mindset-related, experiential, linguistic, and disciplinary boundaries in all thought and communication processes. As has been mentioned, this toolbox was initially developed for application in a faculty of architecture and urban planning to be used by professional planners. However, since literally every action (with the exception of the blinking of eyes, the act of breathing, etc.) is preceded by a planning process and conceptual framing of work steps, it’s easy to transfer these tools to other fields and disciplines.
Everyone plans
Planning represents the conceptual anticipation of actions and ultimately serves no other purpose than to solve problems of varying complexity. As such, this book is not a textbook for a small, initiated circle of specialists of a given field. We all make plans, not just those who build schools, or allocate new housing areas: business managers make plans, be it for the purpose of annual budgets, the development and launch of new products, or the take-over of a competitor; politicians plan the conversion of the pension system, for example, or the introduction of a truck and passenger car toll system, working together with consortia of companies and business consultancies; software developers plan data structures that help to find answers to complex customer queries.
Planning processes are always triggered by a desire for change. Following a given planning process, people expect things to be different from and better than before; or they expect things to remain as they are because a looming change is seen as undesirable. In both cases, precise ascertainment of steps leading to a solution is required.
This straightforward description contains a subdivision that underpins the main working aids of this book and that can be applied systematically to every problem no matter how complex it may be: a given problem is split into a “triad” consisting of a deficient (or preservation-worthy) initial state, a better-rated (or desired) target state, and the measures which are to be taken for attaining the desired state. This main subdivision is explained in detail in the section on deficient states in chapter 1.
The conventional reading of what it means to “have a problem” is that all one needs is certain measures that are necessary for reaching a given goal, and that the deficient state, which is to be rectified, as well as the envisaged goal are generally known well enough. Viewed in this way, a given goal is often not much more than a reformulation of a deficient initial state (for example: “Every day, there’s a traffic jam on the access road XY.” The goal: “to eliminate the traffic jam.” Another example: “Company revenues are declining.” The goal: “revenues must rise again.”).
However, at this point we’re confronted with a crucial question whose relevance will certainly become clearer and more comprehensible later: Is it at all possible to draw useful conclusions about those who are affected and about possible measures from such rather imprecise problem definitions and is it, by extension, acceptable that goals are formulated by simply “inverting” such (imprecise) problem definitions? Returning to the first example cited above: Does the traffic jam disturb the motorists or the residents who are affected by the emitted particulate matter? Should the road get additional driving lanes or be closed entirely? After all, this would also solve the problem of traffic jams. Should a user-friendly park&ride system be installed in the access road or should perhaps everyone working in the vicinity of the affected access road be provided with a free public transport ticket in sync with the introduction of a city toll charge? Should natural gas-powered vehicles be used? Or should commuters be compelled to join car pools? With reference to the second example cited above, does revenue loss threaten the continued existence of a given enterprise, its quarterly targets, the corresponding premiums of its managing director, or the mood of its shareholders? Should prices be lowered to combat revenue loss? Or should this be achieved by launching new products or an advertising campaign? Alternatively, can downsizing help to balance things out?
In both cases, it becomes apparent that even before we come to the issue of unclear goals or measures in a given problem-solving process, we’re confronted with a highly common ambiguity as to what the problem is actually about. Put more positively, those who’ve made the effort to define a problem as precisely as possible have, in doing so, already successfully tackled one of the most crucial work steps; as such, they’ve also eliminated several potential sources of error, bringing “blind spots” into their overview of a given situation, while also closing possible gaps in their chain of arguments at an early stage.
What’s the problem?
What’s actually the problem? The things that appear at first glance? Or is it something completely different? Or, to cite the “traffic jam” example, is it perhaps the fact that regular traffic jams occur in a given road at specific times? Is it the lack of an additional driving lane which could be built on the existing grass strip? Or is it simply that employees think they must drive to their inner-city workplaces in their own cars? Do employees simply have no other choice because they waste a lot of time and money in the outdated park&ride system? In any case, wouldn’t the incentive to leave the car behind be much greater if bus and train tickets weren’t be so overpriced? Then there would be fewer traffic jams during rush hour. Or is it that the traffic jam wouldn’t matter if it didn’t contribute to air pollution?
Such questions are not about hairsplitting. On the contrary, they shed light on the immense importance of problem formulation for successful problem removal. It’s no coincidence that the analysis of failed plans teaches us one thing in particular, namely that before any attempt at a solution is undertaken the initial state must be much more thoroughly examined.
If a problem is defined unclearly, every attempt at solving it amounts to nothing more than speculative action. In such cases, there’s a great risk of suggesting ineffective measures which don’t lead to any solution, thereby wasting precious resources such as time and money; or that basic planning efforts result in changing things but not necessarily for the better, leading to much worse results in many cases.
How to accurately define a problem, why this can be “independently” achieved at all, and which working aids can help to do so is treated in detail in chapter 1.
Learning to juggle
The model introduced here for solving complex problems can best be compared to juggling: we start to handle ever more balls which need to be kept in the air simultaneously. We don’t throw just one ball into the air; we don’t catch it, put it aside and only then launch a second ball. Instead, we’re confronted with the task of keeping all the balls in the air simultaneously. Every single ball passes through our hands several times, running through the process of being caught and relaunched. This is similar to how the constituent parts of the problem-solving strategy introduced here are handled. The reason for this is that at no point during the process is a given work step compulsorily treated as unquestioningly complete and “ticked off” only to have the next step follow and build on the first. No individual operation is complete after only a single round of deliberations. Indeed, it often leads problem-solvers back to a previous step, following a change in perception, thereby producing greater clarity, and subsequently launching a new round.
It’s too easy to assume that by simply paying more attention to precise problem formulations we’ll get a new problem-solving strategy, claiming that this in itself will generally make solving complicated matters easier. Accurate ascertainment of a given problem is only one of many “balls”, albeit a crucial one.
Once thorough problem ascertainment has been undertaken and once the first thought has been expressed and written down, a new “ball” comes into play. More balls follow. The ball that represents the formulation of the deficient state stays in circulation and is influenced by subsequent insights or newly emerging questions. As soon as a given problem is described, it must be ascertained whether one has really advanced to the crux of the matter at hand, or whether one has again only dealt with symptoms that actually refer to an entirely different problem. Every answer refers to new questions: do we really know the cause of “our” problem – i.e., where exactly we should start our deliberations?
We must ask ourselves whether we’re taking sufficient time to oversee the many factors that shape a deficient state, which we, of course, want to change. Are we only including those factors that immediately become apparent, that do so “from experience”, or for which we already have a predetermined method and therefore strike us at first sight? Is there perhaps a possible cause in an entirely different field which we’ve never thought about before?
Once juggling this “ball” has led to new ideas, we’re prompted to re-pose the initial question which we had wanted answered long ago in our rush to quickly find solutions: what actually is the problem? Which causes possibly underpin a refined or widened problem? Which measures can be derived from these causes? In the further course of this (juggling) process, one becomes aware of new difficulties, especially when other actors are involved, as is common in planning processes.
Perceiving problems is highly subjective, as is the use and understanding of what a given concept (term) means. Again, one question follows the next. The next “ball” starts circulating, this time on the issue of concept definitions: which key concepts emerge during the formulation of a problem? How can I assume that all participants mean the same thing when, for example, we talk about the concept of “corporate success”? Are companies to be considered successful if they’re better than their competitors, or does it already constitute success if one averts bankruptcy? The same applies when we talk of traffic calming. Who are the road users we’re concerned with? How many are to be reduced in a given traffic scenario and how much lower should the speed limit be? In the case of “appropriately” pricing public transport tickets, we may ask: what is “appropriate” and to whom? Were possible differences discussed at all? Why does it often seem as if everyone is talking at cross-purposes, or worse, why do they actually do so? This is treated in further detail in chapter 3.
Another “ball”, without which “juggling” in the way this handbook understands it would not be possible, is called “approaches”. Why is a given measure that seems so useful to all participants resisted by an individual interlocutor seemingly without a recognizable, logical reason? Can anyone, at all, be “pro” enough to “objectively” assess what the best solution for a problem would be and subsequently support it, even if it contradicts his/her own professional convictions? Can he/she go against what is commonly seen as right or wrong within his/her professional community? The section on “approaches” in chapter 3 exemplifies how strongly problem-solving processes are shaped by this professional “mindset” – i.e., the thought patterns prevalent in a given professional group. It becomes clear how fatal an underestimation of the distinctly personal views of interlocutors, shaped by their professional experiential backgrounds can be, no matter what the problem-solving constellation consists of and what the level of deliberations is.
The working aids compiled in this book cannot be applied following a fixed scheme, as has already been mentioned, just as juggling doesn’t permit independent use of single balls; all balls must be repeatedly and continuously thrown into the air and deftly caught. Though this may sound confusing, it’s actually the best remedy for confusion, disorientation, substitutive action, speculative action, subliminal resistance, and the waste of time and money.
Format and usability
This book is not supposed to be a scientific publication but a handbook. It’s meant to be handy and can also be read in individual sections rather than in a strictly sequential manner. Its character is that of a practical reference book in which answers can be found quickly and footnotes are dispensed with for ease of use.
This handbook compiles thoughts, ideas, and assistance from numerous fields of work and philosophical and planning theory-related schools of thought, and also includes practical examples from teaching, daily working routines, and day-to-day politics.
It has been structured and written to be used without having to first internalize the background of what one is reading and applying. To cite an explanatory example: for thousands of years now, philosophers and scholars have been discussing and researching issues that are also raised here, such as the question of concepts, their meaning, and the signification they represent; whether concepts have an “inherent” meaning or whether it is only created by us as observers; or asking where the origin of values lies and whether values are changeable.
In order to practicably solve a (planning) problem which has undoubtedly been affected by these questions, it’s not required to have comprehensive preliminary knowledge of individual contrary standpoints that are taken in the relevant debates. It often suffices to be aware of an appropriate and purposefully shortened quintessence which has been woven into this text in many forms.
To make this handbook even user-friendlier, more elaborate quotes, ideas, theories, examples from popular and scientific sources, and references to “spiritual fathers” from many disciplines, which are addressed to more critical readers who are curious to know more about a given background, are not elucidated in the handbook itself, but are assembled in a bibliography.
The professional background of this book
Those who have to solve problems in practice frequently can’t afford to make philosophical observations or dwell on theoretical discourses, often due to time constraints. However, it’s a fallacy to assume that plans can be drawn up and problems solved by dispensing entirely with “theory”. Whenever deliberations are made for solving a given problem and concrete actions are conceived in the mind – i.e., whenever one makes plans in some form or another – theories are applied, both consciously and subconsciously.
This deliberately practice-oriented handbook and its suggestions for action rest on a theory which in turn is based on knowledge and insights derived from other theories. The objective of this handbook is to avoid confusing readers with superfluous knowledge and to provide valuable advice on the application of the mentioned working aids and their well-founded theoretical background at a time where superficial, inflated knowledge in the field of counseling seems all-pervasive.
The planning theory (of the “Third Generation”) that underpins this handbook uses, among other things, a model to describe relationships between a system and its environment, which was developed by the biologist Jacob von Uexküll in the 1920s. Readers looking for practical advice are not obliged to know why the Uexküll model is still highly topical today and which of its details are responsible for making it so well suited to contemporary conditions. It suffices to know that the planning theory of the “Third Generation” was developed as part of the teaching and research activity in a faculty of architecture and urban planning. The epithet “Third Generation” was applied since it follows planning theories that can be said to be of the “First” and “Second Generation”.
The planning theory of the “First Generation” was the prevailing model up until around the end of the 1950s and referred to a more or less uniform, sequential progression of individual, “rationally” realizable planning steps: “Understand the problem, collect information, analyze that information, develop solutions, assess those solutions; implement, test, and modify the solution, if required.”
However, this idea of the progression of a planning process (which was, apart from the following aspects, quite appropriate in its core) tacitly assumed, for example, that the person working on solving a given problem is able to comprehensively grasp it in all its aspects and to “objectively” oversee the possible consequences of proposed measures.
It was this untenable assumption (and other critical aspects) underpinning the “First Generation” of planning theory which the “Second Generation” reacted to from the 1960s onwards. Though many aspects of the preceding theory remained unchanged, this version admitted that planners can never obtain an “objective” overview of things, excepting, at best, mental exercises or games such as chess, but excluding all types of problems that include complex questions. This updated planning theory maintained that, in contrast to mathematical equations, for example, complex questions are “wicked” and always highly unique. There’s no way one can grasp them in their entirety, just as it’s impossible to say whether they’ve been solved in the “right” manner or not.
In hindsight, we may today, however, come to the conclusion that the “Second Generation” of planning did not completely break with the “First” or had just modified it. This theory only held a mirror up to the original idea of an absolutely rational and objective problem-solving process; while it negated a few things and reformulated some framework conditions it held on to the old ideas. This is exemplified by numerous negative definitions which define how things must not anymore be in future. Such assertions are found at points in the “Second Generation” of planning where one would instead expect to find concrete statements on how planning functions.
Though problem-solvers had been freed from the unrealizable “claim to absoluteness” in the wake of this paradigm change in their understanding and actions, this was more due to the nature of things (too many aspects, no repeatability) than due to the fact that problem-solvers, being thinking subjects, can only see and assess the things that fit into their minds, while these things are formed into entirely different images in the minds of interlocutors or other people. This aspect – i.e., a planner’s respective professional standpoint (or planning approach) – decisively shapes every problem-solving behavior and first became the subject of attention in the “Third Generation” of planning theory. Therefore, it runs like a thread through this handbook and is a key factor for successfully solving complex problems.
The contributors of this book
The project manager and principal author of this book is Professor Dr. Walter L. Schönwandt, in cooperation with the research associates at the Institute for the Foundations of Planning of the University of Stuttgart. These are: Katrin Voermanek, Jürgen Utz, Dr. Jens Grunau, Dr. Christoph Hemberger. Special thanks go out to Ms Andrea Neuhaus who made a major contribution to the completion of the book by assisting in organizational and practical matters. We would also like to thank Professor Dr. Erwin Herzberger for his drawing and Ines Schröder for her technical support. We are also deeply grateful to Jochen Visscher, Philipp Sperrle, and Susanne Rösler of jovis Publishers, Berlin, who played a central role in creating this book, and also sincerely thank Julian Jain of gutuebersetzt.de, Berlin, for translating the book into English. Once again, we warmly thank all contributors!
1
DEFICIENT STATES
Problems First!
The first chapter treats the issue of deficient states in an in-depth manner. This may come as a surprise to some readers and may even disconcert certain others. After all, professional problem-solvers such as planners, managers, or advisors are gauged by the solutions they come up with and the number of measures they take, i.e., by the drive they show, or, at least, by clearly defined goals. At any rate, they are not assessed in terms of how long they can turn the problem over in their minds. Isn’t it true that problem-solvers are commonly considered beneficial only if they are able to swing into action quickly and instantly know just what is to be done instead of spending long periods brooding over a problem? They are considered successful if they act in a “solution-directed”rather than in a “problem-oriented” manner.
One of the main reasons for writing this book is that, more often than not, attempts at solving a problem fail not due to a “false” solution but because the problem at hand was not sufficiently analyzed beforehand, which in turn leads to engaging with a “wrong” problem right from the start.
“We fail more often because we solve the wrong problem than because we get the wrong solution to the right problem.”
Russel Ackoff
As such, this first chapter is above all a plea for more “problem orientation” and less “solution fixation”. It aims to raise awareness of the fact that the manner in which a problem is perceived has a decisive bearing on the success or failure of any attempt at a solution.
Depending on how well or poorly, how precisely or imprecisely, how broadly or narrowly a problem definition is formulated, the types of solutions that can be found are to a large extent determined accordingly.
Correspondingly, the deficient state – i.e., the question of where exactly a particular problem lies and how it may be described – can hardly be overemphasized.
Although this book is solution-oriented, the chapter on deficient initial states is treated in much greater detail than in comparable books, because this is the only way good solutions can be found in a manner that is reliable, comprehensible, and reliably reproducible. The slogan“Problems First!” amounts to the most important working aid and has therefore also been chosen as the heading of the first chapter.
Moreover, the objective of this first chapter is also to allow one’s own view of a deficient state and its immediate “surroundings” to broaden and shift, much like the beam of a headlight. By deliberating on the origins and immediate consequences of a deficient state, new, potentially more precise, comprehensive, as well as better solvable problem descriptions automatically emerge.
A so-called problem shift helps to expand a focus that may possibly be too tight, placing it on other areas which were hitherto not taken into consideration. As a result, a new perception of interrelations incorporating other, previously overlooked “trigger moments” is opened up, including the path to new solutions. What may seem at first glance like a random action (following the motto “can one simply go on renaming a problem until it fits into a predefined concept?”) is not only a legitimate step but also an effective procedural element for solving problems, as is explained in this chapter. After all, problem definitions are neither irrevocable nor are they predetermined by a higher authority as being “objective”.
Problems are never objective.
Problems are never objective, i.e., independent of the observer or simply “out there in the world”. They exist exclusively in the minds of the human beings whom they concern. As such, problems are always subjective.
This has far-reaching consequences for the assessment and solution of problems. There is no deficient state which, in its myriad aspects, only has negative consequences for one or more people concerned. There may well be consequences others are simply indifferent about or which are even downright advantageous for them.
The reason categories such as “objectively true”, “objectively correct”, or “objectively unrealizable” should generally be deleted from the vocabulary of every professional problem-solver is explained in detail in this chapter and the following ones. For the moment, let us remember that every formulation of a deficient state is an act of subjective positing that a client, boss, colleague, journalist, or indeed anyone who has put his/her view of things into words, undertakes.
For this reason, it is in the interest of every professional problem-solver to treat these questions critically and thoughtfully and not to instantaneously churn out suggestions for solutions, but rather to question a given problem. Visually speaking, this would be tantamount to redirecting the light beam entirely and in full awareness of one’s own subjectivity on aspects that have hitherto remained in the dark and that may hold the key to new or much improved solutions.
What will become clear at the end of the chapter is that it is worthwhile to initially suppress any acquired “solution reflex” and to critically examine a given question before attempting to find answers. Moreover, it will also become apparent that the work step of “problem shifting” is a valuable method in the problem-solving landscape, which widens horizons, transforms views, and creates maneuvering room.
No solution? No problem!
First and foremost, learning to solve problems in a better, more creative, and more effective way entails training one’s own skills in recognizing and naming a “problem” in its interconnectedness (causal integration/reciprocal effects). This statement is much less obvious than it may seem. Put differently, whoever wants to really solve a problem and address a malady at its roots often not only lacks a solution, but one must first recognize what the matter at hand actually is. Experience shows that the issue at hand often significantly differs from what is initially assumed.
When solving problems, we normally assume that the actual problem definition is sufficiently known to us and only the solution is yet unknown. In fact, this is frequently not the case. As such, this chapter does not teach how to solve problems as quickly as possible. Instead, it aims to slow down an often hasty and clumsy entry into the problem-solving process. It provides instructions on and encouragement for engaging with problems; precisely describing and critically examining them in a sufficiently intensive manner, or formulating them anew, if required.
The ascertainment of a problem has considerable influence on the entire subsequent work and solution process. Analyses of failed problem-solving attempts have shown that a thorough examination of initial states was lacking. It is only by carefully performing this step that we can be sure to arrive at a useful overview of as many problem-related aspects as possible, leading to comprehensive solutions instead of being limited to treating only a small section.
Irrespective of whether one is working to solve one’s own problems or to do so on behalf of others, one should be aware of the risk that the way in which a question is posed (forming the starting point for all further deliberations) can limit the solution-finding potential or lead solution-seekers onto a hopeless path.
Our human nature makes us prefer contemplating solutions rather than problems. Visually speaking, this amounts to following the maxim, “I can’t deal with the hole in the boat’s hull. I must bale out the water.” Add to this the commonly applied education and work methods that tell us to stick to this sort of attitude. We take a problem for granted, and in our capacity as professional “troubleshooters” in particular, we want to quickly shake off any problem.
We believe we are expected to deliver one thing above all else: quick solutions.
We are not used to spending much time on a detailed examination of initial states of affairs because we believe we are expected to deliver one thing above all else: quick solutions. However, without thoroughly working on a problem definition, it is impossible to arrive at satisfactory solutions (excepting lucky chances). As long as it is unclear what a given deficient state consists of, every attempt at a solution amounts to speculation. In such cases, there is a high risk of suggesting ineffective measures that don’t lead to any solution but result in wastage of precious resources, such as time and money, or in clumsily changed situations devoid of actual improvements.
One reason for inadequate or lacking ascertainment of problems lies in the complex nature of many planning problems: In addition to our obsessive “fixation on solutions”, we humans like to simply fall back on familiar methods when facing problems without even questioning their basic expediency for specific problem situations. We also tend to be content with the first solution that comes along without considering further options that may lead to better, more easily realizable, more durable, or complementary solutions.
There have, of course, been instances prior to the publication of this handbook where people have indeed noticed and criticized the commonly careless treatment of problem ascertainment. Various observations on this issue always reappear in different thematic contexts, albeit mostly as marginal remarks. In this handbook, this issue becomes the decisive new starting point for formulating problem-solving strategies.
Fredmund Malik advises to follow the premise that a problem is never clear enough to begin with but has to be made clear first.
From among many authors, worthy of mention here is Christoph Hubig – the philosopher of technology – who clearly highlights this point in his two-volume work, Die Kunst des Möglichen. Another competent proponent of this issue is the Swiss management advisor Fredmund Malik. In his bestseller, Führen, Leisten, Leben (paperback, 12th edition), he introduces and explains his comprehensive management theory. He also emphasizes that many decision-makers spend too little time actually thinking about the problem they aim to solve. Remarking on the common illusion that the task is clear, he says, among other things, that most managers switch much too quickly to decision-making in the narrower sense. They tend to believe the matter to be decided upon is clear and that they know what the decision-making problem consists of. Malik suggests following the premise that a problem is never clear enough to begin with but has to be made clear first. According to him, this is the first and most important task for any decision-making process. He goes on to explain: “I am, of course, not talking of minor, trivial decisions. I am talking of important, consequential decisions where the problem at hand is never really clear to begin with. It must be elaborated upon or ‘distilled’, as it were, from a maze of data, assumptions, assertions and vague conceptions.”
He later adds: “If the problem is wrongly understood, there will never be a right decision. However refined the process of preparing, analyzing, and computing individual decisional elements may be, it will not lead to correct solutions if the problem at hand is not understood in its entirety. ‘What is the matter at hand?’ is really the first and most important question that needs to be asked. One should, whenever possible, spend enough time thinking through the matter.”
“What is the matter at hand?”
The first step of every decision-making process must be a thorough and complete ascertainment of the actual problem. “One should neither be content with symptoms nor with opinions”, as Malik contends. “One must advance to the actual facts and causes behind the symptoms and opinions.”
Certain people “find it fashionable to solemnly claim, citing alleged economic efficiency, that it is impossible to ascertain facts and causes because everything is so complex or networked anyway or because certain philosophical questions are getting in the way.” He is, however, dissuasive about being influenced by such trendy claims.
As is explained in more detail later, the biggest difficulty is neither the complexity nor incorrect ascertainment of the problem. A faulty understanding of problems – i.e., one that completely misses the issue at hand – is usually quickly spotted by most managers. The devil is in the details, which means in ensuring that the largest possible number of aspects to a problem is considered and that too as precisely as possible. The biggest trap one can fall into is to define a problem incompletely or only partially correctly (though it may well be plausible) and to put up with hasty decisions due to a lack of time.
In the following, the focus is on explaining how a problem can be split into a triad, consisting of an initial condition judged to be deficient, which includes the persons who suffer from it (henceforth called A[-]); of unknown measures (M?); and the envisaged target condition (B[+]). Before we illustrate this subdivision in further detail, it is already now clear that the maxim “Problems First!”, when closely examined, actually means “Deficient state first!” Put differently, it is crucial to pay the greatest attention to the deficient initial condition, A[-]. Further details on this follow further on in this chapter.
At this point, we must however take a small detour to explain the assumptions on the “nature” of a problem that lie at the heart of this book. It is not meant to provide assistance on individual questions relating, for instance, to the right job or the right purchase decision for a used car. Of course, it can’t be ruled out that certain suggestions may also be useful for problems of this type and scale. However, to put it bluntly, this book is not actually intended for this purpose.
What do we mean by complexity?
Even if the system of splitting a problem into the triad consisting of the deficiency, the target condition and the unknown measures seems rather simple, it can also be applied to highly complex socially relevant questions. Social problems, i.e. those with social relevance, provided the impetus for this book. Therefore, issues such as economics, health, energy supply, pension policy, etc., play important roles as examples, supplemented, as they are, by examples from the field of spatial planning. For complex social problems in particular, the application of this problem-solving strategy is useful and rewarding.
A question is complex if:
• there is a large number of factors that influence the components of a problem;
• these factors lack transparency (due to deficient knowledge, for example);
• there are many cross-linkages between these factors, i.e., if they influence each other and little is initially known of their interdependence;
• there is a large variety of goals and possible measures where potentially undesired long-distance effects or side effects are to be expected.
A clear rejection of objectivity
In order to achieve the freedom to question a given problem definition with a view to widen the concerned problem field and to search for solutions in initially unseen spots, a few familiar assumptions and notional inflexibilities must be overcome. These include, in particular: those that portray problems as something that cannot be modified, differently formulated or interpreted; those that portray them as being given from a higher authority thus “objective”; and those that assume problems fall from the sky and are there for everyone to see. They are not. Problems only exist in the minds of people who are concerned with them. The view of a problem is always subjective.
Problems only exist in the minds of people concerned with them.
A problem description can never be “objective”. By this we mean that it can never be independent of the beholder. To describe a problem in the first place one has to choose from an array of possible conditions and aspects of a situation which can subsequently be negatively assessed and declared as a problem. In doing so, the selection processes are not “given from the outside” but are based on subjective criteria since the choices made are determined by personal background knowledge and one’s own views and intentions. After all, a certain decision could always have gone another way if individual aspects of a situation had been weighed differently, with the consequence that something else (another state) would have been declared as the problem.
Subjectivity has far-reaching consequences for the evaluation and solution of problems. It stays intact throughout the entire problem-solving process. This should not be disregarded. For instance, there is no deficient state which, in its manifold aspects, is always entirely negative for all parties concerned: some aspects may simply be non-consequential for one or more people concerned or even have positive consequences. For some, unemployment is a problem that needs to be urgently solved, for others it is an unfortunate but necessary and therefore unavoidable by-product of our economic system. For some, a new highway is more important, for example, than the biotope through which it is supposed to pass. At any rate, in this world, millions of people die of hunger and thirst. This problem, for instance, would, in “objective” terms, need to be solved much more urgently than that which your own boss has just placed on your desk, if – and this is the crucial point – there is something like objectivity. Since there, indeed, is no objectivity we are mostly concerned with things that subjectively seem most urgent to us.
With regard to a problem, no “problem-solver” ever has the chance to mask out his/her previously gathered professional knowledge, including speculations on existing relationships, habits, and doctrines on the solvability or insolvability of certain questions. He/she can’t even mask out his/her disposition on a certain day, and thus cannot “objectively” and without a bias start on the work.
No two people are likely to have exactly the same idea of the concepts (terms) used to describe a problem and, without further specification, are not even likely to have a similar or comparable understanding (this “special case” of subjective perception is explained in further detail in chapter 3).
Every problem situation can be described in different ways. This state is enhanced by profession-related “description preferences”: in their descriptions, sociologists prefer social aspects and psychologists prefer psychological aspects; economists prefer economic ones, and so on. Nobody is able to deliver a truly complete description of a problem because one always leaves out some aspects. This omission inevitably goes together with subjective decisions, irrespective of whether one is conscious of this or not. Further details are provided in chapter 3 under the topic “Approaches”.
Problems, problem descriptions, formulation of goals, and the selection of measures are never objective, but always subjective because there is no problem which exists outside of the human mind. Certain states can be declared to be problems solely on account of negative evaluations (or due to the presence of certain values). Evaluations depend on people and on what is important for them: their values, precisely. Therefore, in a world without human beings there are no values and therefore no problems either. No problem exists independently of a beholder and his/her knowledge and point of view.
Problems and problem descriptions are never objective but always subjective.
No problem exists outside of the human mind, i.e., without a human being performing an assessment and experiencing a state as deficient in the first place.
For this reason, and this is the good news and the most important aspect of this chapter, no problem description is “inviolable”. We can change and influence it. Let us now turn to the announced triadic classification of a problem.
The constituent parts of a problem
A problem P, however complicated it may seem, can be split into three constituent parts and represented by the following combination of symbols. This practical and simplifying formula is actually valid for all situations:
P = A[-] → M? → B[+]
Here, a problem P consists of an initial state A which is deemed deficient [-] and a state B which differs from the deficient state A[-] and is assessed to be positive [+]; in doing so, the measures M which are required to transform the deficient state into the desired target state B[+] are unknown (“?”). If the measures were known, the solution to the problem would simply amount to following a predefined routine.
An example:
In many German urban regions, employed people traveling in road traffic need increasingly more time to reach their workplaces (deficient state A[-]). How can it be ensured (by means of unknown measures M?) that they reach their workplaces faster in their cars (target state B[+])?
As already mentioned, an inverted problem situation can also be the starting point for a planning process. This is the case if a positive initial state cannot be achieved without intervening, and which would convert itself into a deficient state in future. Cross-referencing this with the triad system, this case results in the following scheme:
P = A[+] → M? → B[-]
An example:
At current levels of energy consumption in industrial nations, estimates predict that the reserves of fossil fuels will last until the year 2100 (initial state A[+]).
What needs to be done (unknown measures M?) to prevent further increase in energy consumption so that resources are not depleted much earlier (undesired future deficient state B[-])?
In order to avoid unnecessary confusion, all explanations that follow refer to the first variant with a deficient initial state and a target state, which is assessed to be better. Actually, all explanations can easily be applied to the inverted case. The tools work in both cases.
The deficient state A[-]
Clearly defining the deficient initial state is a central component of the formulation of a problem. The decision as to what should comprise the initial state for one’s own deliberations is already a subjective choice: from an unlimited number of states that may be considered, a very specific state is looked at in focus. It will soon become apparent that this step represents one of the most important decisions at the start of a planning process.