A New Science of Problem-Solving. Day One.

We as a human race have had to deal with problems since we first slithered out of the primordial slime. After countless millennia of dealing with innumerable problems, I find it curious that there has not been one philosopher or scientist or mathematician or academic who has analyzed the fundamental reasons why solutions succeed and why failed attempts fail. There certainly has not been a shortage of problems that have been solved and many of those solutions were preceded by scores of attempts that failed. Surely there are some fundamental attributes contained within a solution that were glaringly absent in the failed attempts.

If we had such a fundamental understanding -- an understanding of what makes a solution effective and a failure ineffective, then it stands to reason that when we are confronted with a problem, we would be able to easily determine if a potential solution has a chance of succeeding. Or better yet, we would be able to know where a solution may be found in the first place.

But from what I can see, no one has bothered to identify the fundamental attributes of a solution and the lack of those attributes in a failure. As a result, nobody knows how to solve a problem. In other words, if a solution is not readily known, there is no systematic, scientific, logical approach to solving a problem. Instead, everyone takes a completely random, hit-or-miss (and mostly miss) approach.

Given this enormous void in mankind’s collective knowledge, I thought I’d get the ball rolling, right here, right now, on this humble blog. Over the next several days I will outline what I think are some fundamental elements of a solution versus what is missing in a failed attempt. I will also try to show how these principles are being violated by individuals and/or institutions in their efforts to solve problems thereby creating a bigger mess. My hope is that this modest beginning will turn into a Science or Philosophy of Problem-Solving. If ever our human race needed a new science, this is it.

I also look forward to your feedback.

On my next post, I will discuss people’s first instinct in approaching a problem and how this is almost always ineffective.

www.lazyway.net

Comments

[Tom]

It may seem naive, but isn't the answer to your question the scientific method? Isn't that how great scientific and medical advances are made? 1) gather information, 2)hypothocize, 3)experiment, 4)evaluate.
That is the discipline that keeps one from just randomly trying things out and failing...it is the mental discipline that differentiates the winners from the also rans. It is the bureaucratic crap that pops up in organizations that makes work hard. Eliminate the bureacracy and success grows. Sounds simple, but that's what I think...I will be watching for your analysis at your blog.
(I got turned on to your stuff from your comments on the Slacker-Manager Showdown).

[Ben Atkin]

Tom, I agree about the scientific method.

This is my first visit to the site. I am going to look somewhere else for now, and will return after a while. But I'd like to say that so far all I've read is this entry and the introduction at the top of the blog. I am not particularly impressed by this entry (saying philosophers have never attempted to explain this is incorrect, I believe), but the introduction is absolutely awesome.

[Fred Gratzon]

I knew some readers would automatically mention the Scientific Method but I am not going in that direction. Plus the Scientific Method doesn't cut it as a way to solve problems if your hypothesis is wrong in the first place. You merely end up learning your hypothesis flawed. Unfortunately the most common response to that situation is not to change the hypothesis but to conclude that you need to work harder to prove your hypothesis correct.

By the way, few discoveries of note were arrived at step-by-step via Sir Francis Bacon’s Scientific Method. In that light, here’s an interesting quote from Hans Selye, the world renowned medical doctor:

“Just what did Bacon discover? He is like an aged ballet teacher who tells others how to do it. Those who have made the most discoveries have known Bacon least. Those who study Bacon, like Bacon himself, have not succeeded well.”

I will be unfolding my argument over the next several days. So hang in there. A blog may not be the best vehicle for what I am attempting but I’m into experimenting with this medium. Not only that, I’ve got a wonderful audience.

[Mike]

Fred,

My first thought on reading your post was "What about TRIZ?" (a great overview of TRIZ is the first result when you google 'general theory of problem solving'). Yes, it's limited to the domain of invention, but I think it has the characteristics of what you're describing.

My second thought was of Goldratt's Thinking Processes and TOC. I'd be interested in learning why you think they don't fit the bill.

I eagerly await the rest of the series!

[Karen]

I came across this article that I thought was interesting and appropriate for the discussion of failure:

http://www.prism-magazine.org/october/html/the_importance_of_failure.htm

It deals with the importance of studying failure regarding engineering, but the concept applies to other disciplines.

[theostein]

The first step in solving a problem is to find the right problem and then only we will be able to ask the right question to find the right solution.

Some drugs have side effects because it is not the exact medicine for that particular disease.

This is also the case with solving problems. A particular problem may have more than one solution.

Science is NOT a sure thing. A scientific solution may produce the same result to an experiment done by different people in different circumstances but this may be a wrong notion.