Hello, Mike. This is an excellent map for complicated problems.
If we face a complex problem, there is no way to find root causes in advance. They only become clear in retrospect. For instance: if a service is underperforming, there is a multitude of recursive causes and effects at play: technical, political (external), market, marketing, political (internal), HR-related, etc.
Converging at one or two of them at the outset would lead to biased interpretations.
So, yes, excellent map for complicated problems. And a useful simplification in terms of problems and issues.
I also like to differentiate between problems and dilemmas. A problem has to be solved; a dilemma must be conciliated. A typical example would be centralize x decentralize decision rights,
In my opinion, this is not a once-for-all decision. We decentralize because we have problems related to lack of engagement, slow reaction, and so on. And we centralize because we are losing control, compliance, effectiveness, etc.
Confusing problems with dilemmas leads to negative behaviors since whoever thinks that the problem has been solved will rely on enforcement actions to make the "solution" work -- even when the pendulum has moved towards the other pole, and the original decison (for instance: centralize x decentralize) has become disfunctional.
While problems have to be solved, dilemmas have to be managed.
Hi Mike, I used your map to practice my map-building skills. I built steps and outcomes on my own, then compared with yours, and got some really nice insights and learnings on how to think about building maps.
I have a few differences in my step "Decide to get help" vs. yours:
I added: "Know the urgency of the problem":
I believe this is important because if it is not urgent, you may simply not decide to get help and wait for the problem to solve itself, which it often does. I don't think we can assume that every problem is urgent enough to prioritize. A more general statement, which might replace both "Know the urgency" and "Identify the severity" is "Define the priority of solving this problem".
I added: "Understand the cost of solving the problem yourself":
I replaced your two statements “Know what steps you can take to solve the problem yourself" and "Ensure that you have exhausted all possibilities on your own" with this one, because:
A) Understanding the cost of solving it yourself is a more general form of knowing what steps you can take to solve it. Or, put another way, the reason you want to know what steps you can take to solve it yourself, is so that you can estimate the cost of solving it yourself. The latter is the real determinant of whether you should get help or not.
B) The statement "ensure that you have exhausted..." assumes that you actually prefer solving it yourself. For various reasons, you might not, even if you can. I believe the real determinant, again, is whether the cost of solving it yourself is higher or lower than getting help.
I added: "Understand the cost of getting help to solve the problem":
I included this, because in order to decide if you will get help, you will want to estimate the cost of fixing it yourself vs. the cost of getting help. This one refers back to "Understand the cost of solving it yourself" which I explained above.
I added: "Know that the problem is solvable.":
Because this is critical if you will decide to get help.
These are my thoughts and I'm excited to hear your thoughts on it!
I have no problem staying at a high level in a model like this but you may also want to understand cost in terms other than cash
Decide to get help is a universal statement which you can break down if you choose. It's important to get direction. You can always go deeper in a follow on 1:1 or with more targeted research.
Anyway, I'm glad you're thinking this through. I don't have time to do a deep dive on this at the moment, but I hope to later.
Hello, Mike. This is an excellent map for complicated problems.
If we face a complex problem, there is no way to find root causes in advance. They only become clear in retrospect. For instance: if a service is underperforming, there is a multitude of recursive causes and effects at play: technical, political (external), market, marketing, political (internal), HR-related, etc.
Converging at one or two of them at the outset would lead to biased interpretations.
So, yes, excellent map for complicated problems. And a useful simplification in terms of problems and issues.
I also like to differentiate between problems and dilemmas. A problem has to be solved; a dilemma must be conciliated. A typical example would be centralize x decentralize decision rights,
In my opinion, this is not a once-for-all decision. We decentralize because we have problems related to lack of engagement, slow reaction, and so on. And we centralize because we are losing control, compliance, effectiveness, etc.
Confusing problems with dilemmas leads to negative behaviors since whoever thinks that the problem has been solved will rely on enforcement actions to make the "solution" work -- even when the pendulum has moved towards the other pole, and the original decison (for instance: centralize x decentralize) has become disfunctional.
While problems have to be solved, dilemmas have to be managed.
Makes sense?
Yes, and you've given me something to think about :)
Hi Mike, I used your map to practice my map-building skills. I built steps and outcomes on my own, then compared with yours, and got some really nice insights and learnings on how to think about building maps.
I have a few differences in my step "Decide to get help" vs. yours:
I added: "Know the urgency of the problem":
I believe this is important because if it is not urgent, you may simply not decide to get help and wait for the problem to solve itself, which it often does. I don't think we can assume that every problem is urgent enough to prioritize. A more general statement, which might replace both "Know the urgency" and "Identify the severity" is "Define the priority of solving this problem".
I added: "Understand the cost of solving the problem yourself":
I replaced your two statements “Know what steps you can take to solve the problem yourself" and "Ensure that you have exhausted all possibilities on your own" with this one, because:
A) Understanding the cost of solving it yourself is a more general form of knowing what steps you can take to solve it. Or, put another way, the reason you want to know what steps you can take to solve it yourself, is so that you can estimate the cost of solving it yourself. The latter is the real determinant of whether you should get help or not.
B) The statement "ensure that you have exhausted..." assumes that you actually prefer solving it yourself. For various reasons, you might not, even if you can. I believe the real determinant, again, is whether the cost of solving it yourself is higher or lower than getting help.
I added: "Understand the cost of getting help to solve the problem":
I included this, because in order to decide if you will get help, you will want to estimate the cost of fixing it yourself vs. the cost of getting help. This one refers back to "Understand the cost of solving it yourself" which I explained above.
I added: "Know that the problem is solvable.":
Because this is critical if you will decide to get help.
These are my thoughts and I'm excited to hear your thoughts on it!
What does "solvable" mean?
What doe "cost" mean?
I have no problem staying at a high level in a model like this but you may also want to understand cost in terms other than cash
Decide to get help is a universal statement which you can break down if you choose. It's important to get direction. You can always go deeper in a follow on 1:1 or with more targeted research.
Anyway, I'm glad you're thinking this through. I don't have time to do a deep dive on this at the moment, but I hope to later.