data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/46429/46429a97d5170a557834bc6fc2c00bf3c767ebaf" alt=""
I’m certified
to teach (and use) a logic method in problem solving & decision making for a
global 500 company. The problem solving part is all about finding the root
cause of a deviation. It answers the question, “why did it happen?” The decision making part is all about making a
choice. It answers the question, “what should we do?” One might say it is about finding “truth”, regardless
of opinions or feelings, even regardless of some facts that seem relevant at first, but turn out to
be distractions in the end. When a group of engineers or managers cannot solve
a problem or wants to make a good decision, I’m sometimes asked to help with
the logic process even if I’m not an expert in that particular product or
system. I’m not trying to toot my own horn here; I’m getting to a point if you
bear with me.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6311f/6311f455d3c8593c6faf030b5f163970ae1940bd" alt=""
So what do we
do? Do we give up and say there is no way to proceed with a decision? Do we report
back to upper management that the root cause of a problem is “nothing”, or the
cause is “random chance”, or a “spontaneous event”? No, these answers are not
answers at all and they are unacceptable to explain ANY observed effect,
including the existence of the universe or our own being.
Instead, we
use a thinking process to navigate the gaps between what we know and what we
don’t know. Part of the process involves carefully making and tracking assumptions and inferences that connect the facts we have. We then have a way to move toward what is
more reasonable and step away from what is less reasonable given the available
data. This is NOT done via experimentation, observation or trial & error
because these kinds of activities tend to waste company resources. It’s all done
“on paper”, at first, using the available facts &
knowledge (thinking made visible). We must get buy-in that the
company should spend the time and money based on the conclusion we come up
with, even though we have no absolute proof that it is correct; we just show
how it is the most reasonable.
(If you’re
curious, the process is called KT Resolve. It contains aspects of Occam’s Razor
and Toyota’s “5-Whys”, but is much more comprehensive.)
![]() |
A Thinking Process |
The main
point is this; at the end of the process we make a decision or determine the
most probable cause of a problem, but our conclusion comes with NO observable
evidence that it is actually TRUE and we still expect people to accept it. Why? Because accepting
some things without observable evidence is rational & responsible solely
based on the reasoning. Rejecting those same things is irrational &
irresponsible based on the same reasoning. If an engineer or technician at our
company were to keep repeating, “I reject your conclusion because there is no observable
evidence that it is actually true and I will continue to work as if it were not”,
he or she would not be employed with us for long.
Of course,
the most probable cause of a deviation is ultimately proved-out to see if it is
in fact the TRUE cause. A decision will also prove itself out over time as a
good or bad choice. In the spiritual life this proving-out or “moment of truth”
relates to the point of death where the theological virtues of Faith and Hope
are no longer needed for a soul in the presence of God. All that will remain is
Love (see 1 Corinthians 13:13).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3469a/3469a26d1818e6f17375766edd5ba0fcd1e7684a" alt=""