Visual Problems

When we do a jigsaw puzzle, all the pieces lay before us, our eye wanders over them, noting features, looking for similarities. It is a fantastic feat; we go over them again and again, creating a myriad of imagined connections between the pieces. We move pieces around to create new patterns and connections, gradually our ideas coalesce, from simple similarities we build more complex patterns and the picture emerges. It is not a logical process, it is an emergent one, we work on the whole of the problem at once, pieces become joined here and there. Suddenly we see how the small parts go together, logic plays no part whatever, it is all about processing images and ideas. The result is a perfectly ordered solution that has been created from total and complete chaos.

And nobody needs to learn how to do a jigsaw puzzle, it is obvious- you never get any instructions on the box.

What does this tell us? We do not need to learn how to be creative, it is natural, not only that, it is compelling – we are creatures of creativity, we are born to make sense of the world through our creativity. Our logic is learned but our creativity is inherent, but it becomes hampered by our habits of logic, rules and assumptions. Creativity is subtle, elusive, intangible and uncertain. It is this uncertainty that causes us to doubt its merit, we have come to prefer the certainty of logic and mathematics.

But as we have seen, some problems do not yield to logic.

linux hosting

Solution Mapping II, The Purpose of Nonsense

I once took part in a brain storming session in which I felt particularly uncomfortable. On the one hand, I was an experienced manager, I was responsible for significant revenue, had a number of capable people reporting to me, and I was someone who was expected to deal with problems responsibly and effectively – and I felt I had something useful to contribute.

On the other hand, I was sitting there being expected to come up with wildly improbable solutions to problems and it didn’t really sit well with me as it just felt silly, and I didn’t engage with the process.

This does not seem to me to be an isolated example, I am sure that this happens to any number of participants in a similar position. However, this is a serious obstacle to finding creative solutions to problems. So how should we deal with it?

The problem is that ‘silly’ suggestions have no obvious practical purpose, they have no value.

However, if you use the ‘solution mapping matrix’, then even the most wildly improbable suggestions play a part – they acquire a value.

In Part I of this blog, I showed that you will not get ‘breakthrough’ solutions from possible/desirable ideas. These come from the impossible/undesirable segments, therefore, you need improbable ideas.

If each segment of your map is equally populated then the process is working well, if not, people may still be operating within their comfort zone and you need to stretch them further.

You can do this by asking for more impossible/undesirable solutions and give a purpose to nonsense ideas.

Solution Mapping - Part 1

Do this.  Take a sheet of paper, imagine that this piece of paper represents ‘all  solutions to a problem’.  Now, draw a line up the centre and at the top write “Possible” and at the bottom write “Impossible”. Next, draw a line across the centre, label the left end “Undesirable” and the right end “Desirable”.

Normally, when you look for a solution to a problem, you search in sector defined as ‘Desirable and Possible’, this is logical, because these are the type of solutions you want.

But if you have a particularly difficult problem and you can’t find any solutions in that sector?  Logic will not provide a solution.

Since this piece of paper represents ‘all solutions’, the only place you will find a solution (if one exists) is in one of the other sectors.  The problem is that these are all  undesirable and/or impossible.  Therefore, you have two options,

• You can modify one of these unacceptable solutions in some way so as to move it into the desirable/possible sector, or
• You can do something to move either of the axes so that the solution becomes desirable or possible.

To do this you need to change are your assumptions, or the operating environment, etc.

Solutions mapping has a further benefit.  If you are brainstorming for possible solutions, you place each one in the appropriate sector.  As the session proceeds you will build up a map of the solutions you are getting and if you are not getting a similar number of undesirable/impossible solutions, you are not pushing the envelope sufficiently!  Make sure you get many of these solutions,

- Because these are what provide breakthrough solutions.

How do you catch a cricket ball?

Did you ever think about how a fielder in a cricket match manages to catch the ball?  Probably not.  But think about it.  The batsman hits the ball and it travels in an arc, and probably across the line of vision of the fielder.  Furthermore, its path will be affected if the ball is spinning and the wind is blowing. 

How does the fielder know what to do?

A physicist or a mathematician would need to work out the forces acting on the ball, how fast the fielder can move in order to work out where the fielder will meet the ball.  All of which are extremely complex and impossible to calculate in the time available.

So how is it done?  Well it is much simpler than the physicist’s method.  Basically, the fielder runs in the direction which minimises the apparent movement of the ball relative to him.  And if he continues to do that, the ball and he will arrive at the same place at the same time. 

The fielder solves the problem by using a heuristic process, essentially a ‘rule of thumb’, a shortcut that works for very specific problems.  Heuristics are very practical, we use them all the time because they are quick and make problem solving much easier.  

Unfortunately, because we use them so often, we get out of the habit of thinking originally, we make the same assumptions and use the same old ways to solve problems.  For this reason it is important that we identify the assumptions relating to a difficult problem and the thinking (or not) that goes with them.

If you have an Impossible Problem - Break the Rules

I was talking to a friend about my next blog, I rashly asked him to suggest a topic. He suggested that I write about the Irish economic crisis. 

Now I am not an economist, but the more I thought about it, the more complex it became.  The first issue was ‘defining the problem’.  What exactly is Ireland’s problem?  - that depends on who you are.  The nature of the problem depends on which group of stakeholders you belong to, and the list is almost endless.  Bankers, bank shareholders, economists, politicians, taxpayers, workers, the UK treasury, UK taxpayers, the ECB, EU politicians, etc. - each will have a slightly different view on what the problem is and how to solve it. 

So then I started to think about how other economic disasters were resolved.  Argentina is an interesting case.

In 2001-2, Argentina suffered an economic collapse.  The causes were many and varied, it was a rollercoaster ride of political and economic turmoil.  It defaulted on its foreign debt of $132Bn.  The exchange rate of the peso went from 1 to 4 to the dollar.  Employment collapsed and imported goods disappeared.  To get by, people used unofficial ‘complementary currencies’ and bartering.  Eventually, the government ignored the IMF’s guidelines and secured a complete recovery.  Today, Argentina has one of the highest GDP growth rates in S. America and has repaid all of its foreign debt.

Breaking the rules worked for Argentina. The proposed solution for Ireland appears to be geared to wider political as well as economic issues, and follows all the rules.

Perhaps Ireland should break the rules too.



Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Economics prizewinner, wrote an article questioning the wisedom of the IMF rules. (Argentina, short-changed: Why the nation that followed the rules fell to pieces)  http://www.yorku.ca/robarts/archives/institute/2002/stiglitz_argentina.pdf

Assumptions - Questioning Beliefs

Do we question our assumptions sufficiently? 

In my blog about Assumption Mapping, one of the variables was, ‘the level of confidence in the belief of the assumption’. 

How do we form our assumptions and how do we define our level of confidence in them?  It is easy to think that assumptions are facts - but they are NOT, they are based upon opinion and often just ‘received wisdom’ (whatever that means).  Furthermore, they are never caste in concrete,  for example, they can be conditionally, partially or even occasionally true – and if not, can often be made to be.

In the late 1990’s sales of Heinz’s ketchup had fallen considerably.  They needed to do something to boost sales.  In a stroke of genius, they just turned the label upside down.  It was the most successful innovation they ever made.  With the bottle ‘upside-down’, the ketchup was easier to pour.  They questioned the assumption that the cap should be at the top.  They sold 75% more ketchup.

Another consideration is that opinion is subject to bias.  Bias is everywhere, it is almost impossible not to have some form of (cognitive) bias.  There is an extensive list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia, all of which can affect our view of  ‘the facts’.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases 

All of these can distort our beliefs and there are so many, it is a wonder that we are right about anything.

So when you identify assumptions, do not accept them as fact.

Not only should you question them, you should challenge the thinking that led to them.

Rule Breaking

 A considerable number of organisations have had significant cuts to their funding.  If these reductions were around 10%, the cuts they make could be ‘incremental’ – but I may be wrong.  However, they are facing cuts of the order of 30-40%, which are unlikely to be achieved with incremental savings.

One solution is to simply not supply some services, but this may not be politically, legally or morally acceptable.  And hoping that the Government will change its mind and relent is unrealistic. What to do?

When you are faced with an impossible problem, there is only one course of action.

You have to break a rule.  It is the ONLY way out

Here’s an example of rule-breaking.

Bangladesh is a country where around 50% of the population are ‘rural poor’.  They have no money, no assets, own no land and are often illiterate – and the women are among the poorest.

Getting a loan from a normal bank would be completely impossible for these people.

In 1976, Professor Muhammad Yunus started the Grameen Bank., a project to extend finance to the poor to provide self-employment and lift them out of poverty.  The average loan is around $100 (US). Over 95% of the loans are made to women, no collateral is required and they do not sign any legal documents (many can’t read anyway), and defaulters are never taken to court!

This is not aid, repayments are made weekly and interest is charged at 16%.  It has been a huge success.

Professor Yunus broke all the banking rules and won the Noble Peace prize.

Overcoming funding cuts while maintaining the organisation’s services and integrity will be very stressful and a severe test of leadership.  Long-held and cherished assumptions and beliefs will have to be challenged, perhaps even reversed.


Details of the Grameen Bank project can be found here.  http://www.grameen.com/