Research Based Models

The Tech World's Enduring Problem - Grant McCracken

Hear! Hear! Engineers are very good at solving problems using math, science, and technology. The problem occurs when they are solving the wrong problem. To get to the correct answer (solution) you need to be working on the correct question (problem). Most implementation failures that I have seen have been because the problem wasn’t properly understood and communicated.

The Tech World's Enduring Problem - Grant McCracken - The Conversation - Harvard Business Review

How Group Dynamics May Be Killing Innovation

In a paper titled, "Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea (PDF)," Wharton operations and information management professors Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich argue that group dynamics are the enemy of businesses trying to develop one-of-a-kind new products, unique ways to save money or distinctive marketing strategies.

("How Group Dynamics May Be Killing Innovation", Knowlege@Wharton, 5/12/2010)

This research was concerned with comparing the effectiveness of different approaches to brainstorming in developing innovative ideas. Specifically, comparing the traditional team process with a hybrid process where the individuals develop their initial list prior to the team exercise.

They found that the hybrid process resulted in higher quality outcomes because group dynamics didn't kill the new ideas before they had a chance to be vetted and considered.

In addition to idea quality, the researchers also tried to measure one of the predispositions of group dynamics that they believe creates a roadblock to innovation -- build-up, or the tendency of people to suggest ideas similar to one that has already been proposed, and embraced by, the unit. They found that ideas built around other ideas are not statistically better than any random suggestion.

Build-up, Terwiesch believes, "is a social norm showing that you listened. If a group is working together on an idea that's already on the table, you're wary of coming in with your own agenda because you might be seen as selfish and not a team player. So you build on the idea that is currently on the table."

("How Group Dynamics May Be Killing Innovation", Knowlege@Wharton, 5/12/2010)

Based on my experiences with team problem solving and brainstorming I am not surprised by these findings. I believe that the more homogeneous and team oriented the groups are the more pronounced these group dynamics are going to be.

While working within a large research and development facility we dealt with these issues in a number of ways:

• We used a process closer to the hybrid model because each researcher was consistently developing new ideas on their own and taking different approaches to elaborate on those ideas. Therefore, they already had been working on the problem independently before working on it as a team.
• We had researchers with varied backgrounds, expertise and viewpoints working on the same project. This generally prevented "group think" situations.
• The researchers were competitive in the idea phase and they were rewarded for original and successful ideas. They cooperated and collaborated during the implementation phases because the overall project was comprised of ideas from everyone on the team. In other words, no one person was responsible for all of the ideas and decisions on the project. This competition for ideas helped prevent the "build up" issue.
• When evaluating the ideas presented to the group some researchers had developed emotional attachments to the ideas that they had developed independently. This could make it difficult to discuss the idea independently of the researcher. To detach the idea from the person we used the "precious piggy" concept. Each researcher had a physical manifestation that represented their individual idea or ideas. When evaluating and discussing the ideas as a team everyone had to let go of their "precious piggy" and put it in the middle of the table. This symbolized that the idea had to stand on its own and was open to honest discussion.

Myth of Objectivity

Researchers and decision makers claim objectivity behind their findings and decisions.

Researchers believe that their findings are objective facts and they represent the truth about the subject they are studying.

Likewise, decision makers believe that their decisions are based on facts and are not influenced by the opinions and beliefs of themselves or others.

According to Daniel Gilbert, "Research suggests that decision-makers don't realize just how easily and often their objectivity is compromised. The human brain knows many tricks that allow it to consider evidence, weigh facts and still reach precisely the conclusion it favors."

As Jonah Lehrer explains:

The reason we're so resistant to anomalous information - the real reason researchers automatically assume that every unexpected result is a stupid mistake - is rooted in the way the human brain works. Over the past few decades, psychologists have dismantled the myth of objectivity. The fact is, we carefully edit our reality, searching for evidence that confirms what we already believe. (Lehrer 2010, 83)

According to Harper and Huh, "no inquiry or assessment approach— quantitative, historical, qualitative, or multimethod—can be completely objective."  (Harper, 6)

As Janesick (2000, 385) put it, “There is no value-free or bias-free design . . . the myth that research is objective in some way can no longer be taken seriously. At this point in time, all researchers should be free to challenge prevailing myths, such as the myth of objectivity”.

In "Ten myths of science" by William McComas:

Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective
Scientists are no different in their level of objectivity than are other professionals. They are careful in the analysis of evidence and in the procedures applied to arrive at conclusions. With this admission, it may seem that this myth is valid, but contributions from both the philosophy of science and psychology reveal that there are at least three major reasons that make complete objectivity impossible.

According to Liam Marsh:

Objectivity is also a powerful myth that prevails over the world of science and, hence, that of psychology. There is a belief that there is a static reality outside of ourselves that exists on its own, independent of observers. From this comes the idea of truth; the idea that there is somehow a right answer; a way the world truly is. The whole idea of scientific methodology and experimentation exists to serve this fantasy, that there is a method which will give to us the truth, the real nature of things. A theory can be shown irrefutable and certainty can be obtained. The unknown can become known. The question, answered. Woven into this story is the assumption of natural laws. The idea that there are rules or laws which all things abide by. These laws of nature are reliable as well for they never change and always applies. In the stories of science are many peculiar beliefs which purport the unbelievable.

This is why we need to utilize tools and disparate viewpoints to help us make objective and optimized decisions. Tools that enable us to uncover and understand our biases. Alternate viewpoints that balance our biases.

References:

1. Gilbert, Daniel. I'm O.K., You're Biased. The New York Times. 4/16/06.(NY Times)
2. Gillispie, C.C. The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas (Google Books)
3. Harper, S.R and G.D. Huh. "Myths and Misconceptions About Using Qualitative Methods in Assessment", New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 136, Winter 2007, Wiley.
4. Hodson, D. (1986). "The mature of scientific observation." School Science Review, 58(242), 17-28.
5. Janesick, V. J. “The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design.” In N. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks,Calif.: Sage, 2000.
6. Lehrer, Jonah. Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up. Wired. Jan 2010. (Wired)
7. Lehrer, Jonah. How We Decide. Houghton Mifflin 2/9/09.
8. Marsh, Liam. The Fantasy of Science: Psychology's Struggle with a Persona. 1996. The Ares Press. (text)
9. McComas, William, "Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know....," Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10. (text)
10. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.
11. Porter, T.M. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. 1995. Princeton University Press, Princeton. (text)
12. Scheffler, I. (1967/1982). "Objectivity Under Attack" (pp. 1-19). In Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill. (text)

Book Review: The Back of the Napkin

I loved The Back of the Napkin: Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures by Dan Roam. I highly recommend it to anyone who needs to solve problems or communicate their ideas.

From the inside flap:

Any problem can be made clearer with a picture, and any picture can be made using the same simple set of tools and rules.

And...

THE BACK OF THE NAPKIN proves that thinking with pictures can help you discover and develop new ideas, solve problems in unexpected ways, and dramatically improve your ability to share your insights. This book will help you literally see the world in a new way.

The book is broken into four (4) sections:

• Introductions - Anytime, Anyone, Anywhere: Solving Problems with Pictures
• Discovering Ideas - Looking Better, Seeing Sharper, Imagining Further: Tools and Rules for Good Visual Thinking
• Developing Ideas - The Visual Thinking MBA: Putting Visual Thinking to Work
• Selling Ideas - It's Showtime

This book isn't about drawing or modeling. It is a way of decomposing problems and then communicating them quickly and clearly using a standardized set of visual thinking frameworks.

The end result is "The Visual Thinking Codex: a master list of problem-solving pictures." This codex helps select the appropriate visual illustration for your problem type.

Verdict: Buy this book and commit it to memory.

Book Review: Problem Solving 101

I just finished reading Problem Solving 101: A Simple Book for Smart People by Ken Watanabe.

From the inside flap:

Problem Solving 101 started out as a simple guide to teach Japanese schoolchildren critical thinking skills. But it quickly became an adult bestseller, thanks to the powerful effectiveness of Ken Watanabe's problem solving methods.

The tools in this book come from the author's experience as an elite McKinsey consultant. But you don't need an MBA to use them. You'll learn how to broaden and organize your thinking about a problem so that more possible solutions become clear.

This book is 111 pages and is a quick and easy read (part-time over a weekend).

I enjoyed the book and recommend it to anyone that isn't already very experienced using traditional problem solving and critical thinking methodologies. Unfortunately, being an engineer and consultant with significant experience solving problems and developing and evaluating proposals I did not learn any new techniques in this book.

The various problem solving methodologies that he explains and demonstrates are:

• Logic tree
• Yes/No tree
• Root cause analysis
• Problem solving design plan (a modified version of the scientific method)
• 2 x 2 grid (I must admit I am impressed how he incorporated this and made it seem so simple)
• Gap analysis
• Action plan
• Pros and Cons: Criteria and Evaluation

My next test of this book is to give it to my 15 year old, who hates to read, and see how much he can learn from it.

Verdict: If you aren't already familiar with the problem solving methodologies that I listed about then you should read this book.

Assumption Bias

In this innovation tip from Fred Collapy, Innovation Tip: Step Back to Step Forward, he recommends stepping back at regular intervals in the design process. The three things that he recommends stepping back from are:

• a "decision attitude" - instead of just making a decision, make sure that you are asking the correct question and solving the right problem
• users - be concerned less with what they say they want and be concerned more with what they need
• your assumptions - look at the problem with a new set of eyes

Based on my research and problem solving experience I agree that these are three key topics that are important to the problem solving and decision making process.

The quality and success of any endeavor depends upon its goals. If the goal is to research a problem, answer a question, or make a decision then we must first start with the quality of the problem statement. Does it accurately represent what you are trying to achieve? The correct answer to the wrong question is still the wrong answer. Know what you are trying to achieve first and then formulate the problem statement.

While working at General Electric's Global Research and Development Center it took a lot of effort to convince one of our commercial software vendors to add a feature into their product for us. However, after doing so, it became a very popular feature with many of their core customers. They told us that their other customers said that it was something that they always needed, but they just didn't know it.

Constraints and assumptions are common problems among inexperienced scientists and engineers.

While at General Electric I worked with the power generation thermodynamics engineering team to improve their computer aided engineering systems. I witnessed many inexperienced engineers using software and methods outside the boundaries of where they applied and then submitting engineering solutions that defied most of the principles of thermodynamics. They were not aware of the constraint and boundary differences between the previous classes of problems that the software had been designed to work on and their new problem space. Also, their experience working with the software on the existing designs had lead them to assume that the software was always correct. This is a dangerous place to tread, assuming that constraints and solutions transfer across different classes of problems.

During my second year as an engineer I was a researcher on a NASA project to analyze the impact of different aircraft wing and engine configurations. Being an aerodynamic engineer I was focused on the impact of the configuration on the combined drag of the wing/engine assembly. Well, for one of the configurations all of my equations and programs were telling me that I had designed an assembly with negative drag. Negative drag! What the .... Not being a big believer in snake oil and perpetual motion machines I knew this couldn't be true. I reviewed all of my equations and calculations with much more experienced engineers than myself and no one could find the error in my calculations. In the end I finally realized that the problem wasn't with the result. The problem was that I was looking at it with aerodynamic eyes. After discussing the problem with the engine team we realized that this configuration improved the propeller efficiency by enough to more than offset the total drag of the assembly; hence the negative drag.

Bottom line, be aware of the assumptions and constraints that have gone into the design and engage others who don't have the same ones as you.

 

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived from 469 BC to 399 BC. He uttered this during his trial for undermining state religion and corrupting young people. Along with this he also said, "... things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man..." In these statements he is both defending his philosophical inquires as being for the good of mankind and saying that he would rather die than stop. He was eventually found guilty and put to death.

Socrates paid the ultimate price for his commitment to philosophical inquiry and reasoning.

Today you are more likely to suffer if you don't commit to a lifetime of inquiry, reasoning, and critical thinking.

We are surrounded by so many voices pouring out of limitless channels that we need to be able to differentiate between those that are founded on knowledge and those that are founded on ignorance.

And, as we add our voice to the din we need to ensure that our arguments are based on examination, reasoning, and knowledge.

This is our goal. To help you become better at examination, reasoning, critical thinking, decision making, problem solving, and research.