It is no casualty that “Problem Definition” – in some wording or other – is an integral part of all the step-models described in a previous post.
However, considering Kevin Kelly’s tenth paradigm: “Opportunities before Efficiencies” subtitled: “Don’t solve problems; seek opportunities”, problem-definition seems to be too limiting a term in many of today’s competitive environments of accelerating change.
Moreover, an organization may not have or perceive to have any particular “problems”. This does not mean to say that it can sit on its laurels, though, even if only because competition, changing customer preferences, technological breakthroughs or even an ad-hoc crisis may present any given organization with a “Houston, we have a problem” moment at any given point in time, more often than not when least expected.
Therefore, I feel it is more adequate to speak of “Problem Definition & Opportunity Finding”, especially because these two are not in any way mutually exclusive.
In fact, the realization that an opportunity has presented itself to the organization, then turns into a “Problem” in the classical strategic-creative context, because it constitutes the problem definition that focuses the creative effort: How to take advantage of it?
Solid problem definition is of absolute essence, whether when solving problems or finding opportunities, because a badly focused, fuzzy problem- or opportunity definition leads inevitably to bad “output”: poor, or – worse – useless ideas and a waste of precious time, thus, resources.
This may not be a disaster in the case of a failing advertising campaign, however, in the case of corporate strategic planning, it may well mean the difference between life or death for an organization.
One of the most frequently observed obstacles in the problem definition process is the inability or unwillingness to “discriminate” – or, in plain English: to choose.
Wanting to be everything to everybody is by far and large the most certain road to poor ideation, closely followed by “fuzziness”: the inability to properly weigh, define or choose between a number of possible problem/opportunity definitions.
This is why “Single-Minded” is one of the most universally used terms in advertising- and marketing briefing models: one single problem to solve, one single target group to address, one single customer need to satisfy, one single proposition to make.
Problem Definition Tools.
• Boundary Examination.
Method to relax, examine or clearer define the problem definition box or outline, ideally taking it to a higher level of abstraction. Also popularly called “Pushing the envelope” which is both an appreciated attitude in a creative person and a mind-set for ideation: “Let’s see how far we can push the envelope”.
• Causal Mapping or Cognitive Mapping.
The creation of a type of concept map in which the links between nodes represent causality or influence. Causal maps can be particularly useful when analyzing intricate problems or complex systems.
• Chunking.
Breaking down a complex problem, product or a system into its constituent parts.
• Clarification.
Language analysis tool which helps to determine whether a problem definition is properly worded. Checks for deletion, referential index deletion, unspecified verbs, nominalizations, modal operators, lost performatives, generalizations and universal quantifiers, (pre)suppositions, inadequate causal modelling and mind reading, all of which are lingual phenomena that stand in the way of clear, concise, single-minded and unequivocal problem definition. Ed.: Although “jumping to conclusions” is not part of the original description of clarification, it is – in my experience – also often part of ill-defined problem definitions.
• Component Detailing.
A method similar to chunking, especially practical for product improvement or the analysis of complex systems that may be broken down into multiple parts or sub-systems. Instead of looking at the system as a whole, problem analysis and definition focuses on its parts, multiplying the solving opportunities.
• Concept Fan.
A method that allows focusing on a problem definition beyond the original one. Mostly used when the original problem description does not lead to satisfying solutions. Concept fans may also be useful in ideation or concept development.
• Criteria for idea-finding potential.
(Isaksen, Dorval, Treffinger [1994]) Checklist for reviewing a problem statement: Does it show the way to lots of ideas?; Is it the right question?; Does it clearly locate ownership?; Is if affirmative in its orientations?; Is it free of criteria?; Is it stated briefly and clearly?
• Envelope.
Problem definition “box” or outline. Treating and visualizing the problem definition as an envelope may be more conductive than visualizing it as a box, because its higher flexibility leaves more room for redefinition.
• Goal Orientation
(Rickards [1974]; VanGundy [1981; 1988]). Checklist for analysis of problem statements: detailed general problem description; outline of the desired outcome; needs, problem implied inherent difficulties and external constraints.
• Multiple Redefinition.
Generally the result of poor, fuzzy problem definition or multiple disagreeing problem owners. During the ideation process, the solver(s) are confronted with repeated problem redefinition, which – apart of being extremely frustrating – renders solving efforts all but useless. Multiple redefinition is also a creative technique which allows different angles on a given problem by rephrasing it’s definition.
• Nominal Group Technique.
(Bartunek and Murnighan [1984]). Used to determine poor problem definition. Team members and/or outsiders are asked to list ideas related with the defined problem. If these ideas cannot be clustered into (somewhat) coherent groups, the problem may be considered ill-worded, ill-defined or both.
• Other People’s Opinions.
Allowing outsiders to review or criticize a problem definition or solution. Also frequently used in advertising agencies for off-the-wall consumer review: “Let’s ask the secretaries”.
• Problem Owner/Stakeholder.
Individuals or parties responsible for or affected by the problem and/or the problem definition, and – therefore – the approval of its proposed solutions. It is possible (or even likely) that a problem has multiple owners, however, it is of essence that they agree on its definition.
If the problem owners turn out not to concur – which generally becomes obvious only after the ideation process has started – a phenomenon called “Multiple Redefinition” tends to present itself, leading to lost time and wasted resources.
• Union Skinning.
A problem redefinition method that either looks to redefine the problem definition by expanding it beyond its boundaries – wording it in more generic or different terms, taking it to higher level abstractions or by looking at adjacent areas (layering) – or by narrowing it down – for example by focusing on problem sub-areas (peeling).
However, considering Kevin Kelly’s tenth paradigm: “Opportunities before Efficiencies” subtitled: “Don’t solve problems; seek opportunities”, problem-definition seems to be too limiting a term in many of today’s competitive environments of accelerating change.
Moreover, an organization may not have or perceive to have any particular “problems”. This does not mean to say that it can sit on its laurels, though, even if only because competition, changing customer preferences, technological breakthroughs or even an ad-hoc crisis may present any given organization with a “Houston, we have a problem” moment at any given point in time, more often than not when least expected.
Therefore, I feel it is more adequate to speak of “Problem Definition & Opportunity Finding”, especially because these two are not in any way mutually exclusive.
In fact, the realization that an opportunity has presented itself to the organization, then turns into a “Problem” in the classical strategic-creative context, because it constitutes the problem definition that focuses the creative effort: How to take advantage of it?
Solid problem definition is of absolute essence, whether when solving problems or finding opportunities, because a badly focused, fuzzy problem- or opportunity definition leads inevitably to bad “output”: poor, or – worse – useless ideas and a waste of precious time, thus, resources.
This may not be a disaster in the case of a failing advertising campaign, however, in the case of corporate strategic planning, it may well mean the difference between life or death for an organization.
One of the most frequently observed obstacles in the problem definition process is the inability or unwillingness to “discriminate” – or, in plain English: to choose.
Wanting to be everything to everybody is by far and large the most certain road to poor ideation, closely followed by “fuzziness”: the inability to properly weigh, define or choose between a number of possible problem/opportunity definitions.
This is why “Single-Minded” is one of the most universally used terms in advertising- and marketing briefing models: one single problem to solve, one single target group to address, one single customer need to satisfy, one single proposition to make.
Problem Definition Tools.
• Boundary Examination.
Method to relax, examine or clearer define the problem definition box or outline, ideally taking it to a higher level of abstraction. Also popularly called “Pushing the envelope” which is both an appreciated attitude in a creative person and a mind-set for ideation: “Let’s see how far we can push the envelope”.
• Causal Mapping or Cognitive Mapping.
The creation of a type of concept map in which the links between nodes represent causality or influence. Causal maps can be particularly useful when analyzing intricate problems or complex systems.
• Chunking.
Breaking down a complex problem, product or a system into its constituent parts.
• Clarification.
Language analysis tool which helps to determine whether a problem definition is properly worded. Checks for deletion, referential index deletion, unspecified verbs, nominalizations, modal operators, lost performatives, generalizations and universal quantifiers, (pre)suppositions, inadequate causal modelling and mind reading, all of which are lingual phenomena that stand in the way of clear, concise, single-minded and unequivocal problem definition. Ed.: Although “jumping to conclusions” is not part of the original description of clarification, it is – in my experience – also often part of ill-defined problem definitions.
• Component Detailing.
A method similar to chunking, especially practical for product improvement or the analysis of complex systems that may be broken down into multiple parts or sub-systems. Instead of looking at the system as a whole, problem analysis and definition focuses on its parts, multiplying the solving opportunities.
• Concept Fan.
A method that allows focusing on a problem definition beyond the original one. Mostly used when the original problem description does not lead to satisfying solutions. Concept fans may also be useful in ideation or concept development.
• Criteria for idea-finding potential.
(Isaksen, Dorval, Treffinger [1994]) Checklist for reviewing a problem statement: Does it show the way to lots of ideas?; Is it the right question?; Does it clearly locate ownership?; Is if affirmative in its orientations?; Is it free of criteria?; Is it stated briefly and clearly?
• Envelope.
Problem definition “box” or outline. Treating and visualizing the problem definition as an envelope may be more conductive than visualizing it as a box, because its higher flexibility leaves more room for redefinition.
• Goal Orientation
(Rickards [1974]; VanGundy [1981; 1988]). Checklist for analysis of problem statements: detailed general problem description; outline of the desired outcome; needs, problem implied inherent difficulties and external constraints.
• Multiple Redefinition.
Generally the result of poor, fuzzy problem definition or multiple disagreeing problem owners. During the ideation process, the solver(s) are confronted with repeated problem redefinition, which – apart of being extremely frustrating – renders solving efforts all but useless. Multiple redefinition is also a creative technique which allows different angles on a given problem by rephrasing it’s definition.
• Nominal Group Technique.
(Bartunek and Murnighan [1984]). Used to determine poor problem definition. Team members and/or outsiders are asked to list ideas related with the defined problem. If these ideas cannot be clustered into (somewhat) coherent groups, the problem may be considered ill-worded, ill-defined or both.
• Other People’s Opinions.
Allowing outsiders to review or criticize a problem definition or solution. Also frequently used in advertising agencies for off-the-wall consumer review: “Let’s ask the secretaries”.
• Problem Owner/Stakeholder.
Individuals or parties responsible for or affected by the problem and/or the problem definition, and – therefore – the approval of its proposed solutions. It is possible (or even likely) that a problem has multiple owners, however, it is of essence that they agree on its definition.
If the problem owners turn out not to concur – which generally becomes obvious only after the ideation process has started – a phenomenon called “Multiple Redefinition” tends to present itself, leading to lost time and wasted resources.
• Union Skinning.
A problem redefinition method that either looks to redefine the problem definition by expanding it beyond its boundaries – wording it in more generic or different terms, taking it to higher level abstractions or by looking at adjacent areas (layering) – or by narrowing it down – for example by focusing on problem sub-areas (peeling).
No comments:
Post a Comment