A Different Way to Think About Problem-Solving

In school we learn to recognize a “problem” mostly in the context of an assignment. We are asked to find the right answer to a question, and that is called solving a problem. When someone is trying to learn a specific tool, it makes sense to start with a problem and then solve it with that tool. But what if we do not know exactly which solution technique we want to use? Does it still make sense to write down the problem first?

The general consensus is that yes, you start by writing down the problem. A lot of the discussion around problem solving in practice is how to recognize if you have the right problem. Avoiding Type Three Error (the name of this blog) is about that idea, making sure you solve the right problem.

So here is the key challenge. When the goal of solving a problem is to use a specific technique, it is clear what makes a good problem statement. It should have the information you need to use the technique. But if the goal is to solve a problem in general, how do you know if you have the right one?

For me, the right problem still starts with a guess of how to solve it. This approach to problem solving feels very similar to the way we teach science. In the scientific method we start with a hypothesis, and then we assess how we can collect evidence to either increase or decrease our confidence in our hypothesis. So I begin with a sort of… problem topic and a hypothesis: If this is my chosen technique, what is the associated problem and how would I collect evidence to increase or decrease my confidence that it is the right one?

What my approach looks like in detail will be a topic for a future post. But for today I want to focus on convincing you that there is a gap when you start by writing down a specific problem without considering how you might solve it. Say someone was trying to identify a problem they could solve to make the world a better place. They write down “Fix global poverty.” Everyone can agree that this is a problem worth solving.

On the other hand, it is clear that “fix global poverty” is not quite the right problem for an individual to solve. Is there anything about the problem statement that makes it the wrong problem? My line of reasoning goes something like this:

“Well, if the problem is fix global poverty, somehow I would need to help people all over the world. That could take an enormous amount of resources, but I do not have that available to me. What other solutions could I take to solve this problem? This is actually so huge that I have no idea where I could even start to fix it.” All of my reasoning has to do with the future solution to evaluate the quality of the problem.

It might seem like semantics to say I start with a “problem topic” not a “problem.” And maybe it is. But starting from “I want to do something about global poverty, what tools do I have at my disposal?” is much easier for me to get my head around.

I will keep it short for this post, but please share your thoughts. Does this resonate with your experience?