i

STRATEGIC THINKING
INCOMPLEX PROBLEM
SOLVING
ii
 iii

Strategic Thinking
inComplex
Problem Solving
Arnaud Chevallier

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford UniversityPress

198 Madison Avenue, NewYork, NY 10016, United States of America.

Oxford University Press2016

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, storedin

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, withoutthe
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scopeofthe
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press,atthe
addressabove.

You must not circulate this work in any otherform

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

A copy of this books Catalog-in-Publication Data is on file with the Library of Congress
ISBN 9780190463908

987654321
Printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada
 v

To Dad, for pushing me to be a better problem solver.

Imiss you everyday.

To Mom, for your unconditionallove.

To Justyna, for your continuous support.

vi
 vii

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix

1. An Overview of Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving 1

2. Frame the Problem 21

3. Identify Potential Root Causes 45

4. Determine the Actual Cause(s) 79

5. Identify Potential Solutions 117

6. Select a Solution 141

7. Sell the SolutionCommunicate Effectively 161

8. Implement and Monitor the Solution 203

9. Dealing with Complications and WrapUp 229

References 239
Index 279
viii
 ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply indebted to my dear friend, and boss, Paula Sanders, who

pushed me over the years to see this project through and who has contributed immensely to
its content. Thank you also for inviting me to join your team at Rice, where I have developed
and tested many of the ideas in the book.
I am grateful to Tim van Gelder, Domenico Grasso, Ralph Biancalana, Jonathan Burton,
Edward Kaplan, Hal Arkes, Matthew Juniper, Ken Homa, and Roberta Ness for many stim-
ulating conversations over theyears.
The book improved significantly thanks to the comments of reviewers; Iam particularly
thankful to Erwan Barret, Jon Bendor, Franois Modave, Tracy Volz, Jennifer Wilson, and
Petros Tratskas.
My sister, Astrid Chevallier, provided many valuable inputs, for which Iam thankful.
Iam also appreciative of the support from Anastasio Garca, Mom, lonore, and Thibaut.
My good friend and partner in crime in our band Kirby-sur-Seine, Frdric Houville,
showed me that music can help you be a better strategic thinker. Thank you for this, Fred!
Philippe Gilbert, thank you for showing me what amazing people skills can do.
Many of my colleagues at Rice have helped me form and improve my thinking, even
though they may not know it. Among them, I want to give particular thanks to David Vassar,
Matt Taylor, Seiichi Matsuda, Dan Carson, Celeste Boudreaux, Penny Anderson, Galina
Dubceac, Susannah Mira, Nicole Van Den Heuvel, Kate Cross, Cindy Farach-Carson, Jana
Callan, Antonio Merlo, Gia Merlo, Kathy Collins, Adria Baker, Kevin Kirby, John Olson,
Paul Padley, Joe Davidson, Carlos Garcia, Richard Zansitis, Bob Truscott, and Luigi Bai.
I am also thankful to many of my former students, in particular to Mary Walker, David
Warden, Luke Boyer, Saadiah Ahmed, Malaz Mohamad, James Hwang, and Michael Sinai.
My dear friend and matre penser Pol Spanos has my gratitude for his guidance and for
our many thought-provoking conversations; Ilook forward to manymore!
My wonderful friend Mariana Tllez showed me how to think like a lawyer (in a good
way) and how to be more effective in asking clarifying questions, for which I am grate-
ful. I also wish I had even half her courage. I am also grateful to Alain Ogier aka Papou,
x

Beatriz Ramos, Javier Arjona, Jos Alfredo Galvn, Marta Sylvia Del Rio, Humberto Alans,
Francisco Azcnaga, Mario Alans, Michael Kokkolaras, Stphanie Page, Stuart Page,
Ricardo Mosquera, Mara Emilia Tllez, Anthony Hubbard, Xavier Abramowitz, Nicolas
Boyat, David Sandoz, Rgis Clot, Jean Vincent Brisset, and Konrad Wlodarczyk.
I am much appreciative to my editors Courtney McCarroll and Abby Gross for their
effectiveness and for making it such a pleasure to work with them. To Abby, I am also
indebted for taking an early interest in this project and not letting it go until completion.
And, finally, thanks to you, Justyna, for being here and to William for your loyalty
and inspiration.

x Acknowledgments
 1

CHAPTER1

AN OVERVIEW OFSTRATEGIC
THINKING INCOMPLEX
PROBLEM SOLVING

O n a Wednesday afternoon, your cell phone rings. Its your friend John,
and he is frantic:My dog, Harry, is gone! Icame home a few minutes ago and Harrys not
here. Ileft my house at noon, and when Icame back, around four, he was missing. Our
house has a backyard with a doggy door in between. This is really strange, because he hasnt
escaped in monthsever since we fixed the gate, he cant. Ithink the housekeeper is hold-
ing him hostage. Ifired her this morning for poor performance. She blamed Harry, saying he
sheds too much. She was really upset and threatened to get back at us. He has no collar; how
are we going to find him? Also, the yard crew came today to mow the lawn. Anyway, youre
the master problem solver. Help me findhim!
You and Isolve countless problems every day, sometimes even without being aware of
it. Harry is a real dog, whose disappearance provided me with an opportunity to describe
some tools that are universally applicable through a concrete (and true!) case. This book
will help you acquire techniques to become better at solving complex problems that you
encounter in your personal and professional life, regardless of your occupation, level of edu-
cation, age, or expertise.
In some cases, these ideas will not apply as well to your own situation, or you may feel
that an alternative is better. For instance, one limitation of this technique is that it is time
consuming, so it is ill-suited to Grints critical problems that require decision-making under
tight deadlines.1 If thats the case, you may want to cut some corners (more in Chapter9) or
use a different route. This is perfectly fine, because this approach is meant to be a modular
system of thinking, one that you can adapt to yourneeds.
This book shows how to structure your problem-solving process using a four-step ap-
proach: framing the problem (the what), diagnosing it (the why), finding solutions (the
how), and implementing the solution (the do) (see Figure1.1).

1. (Grint, 2005)[pp.14731474].
2

1. Frame the 2. Diagnose 3. Find potential 4. Implement

problem the problem solutions solution

WHAT WHY HOW DO

problem should are you facing can you
you solve? this problem? solve it?

FIGURE1.1: We use a four-step approach to solving problems.

First, identify the problem you should solve (the what). Facing a new, unfamiliar
situation, we should first understand what the real problem is. This is a deceptively difficult
task:We often think we have a good idea of what we need to do and quickly begin to look for
solutions only to realize later on that we are solving the wrong problem, perhaps a periph-
eral one or just a symptom of the main problem. Chapter2 shows how to avoid this trap by
using a rigorous structuring process to identify various problem statements, compare them,
and record our decision.
Second, identify why you are having this problem (the why). Knowing what the
problem is, move to identify its causes. Chapter3 explains how to identify the diagnostic
key questionthe one question, formulated with a why root, that encompasses all the other
relevant diagnostic questions. Ithen show how to frame that question, and how to capture
the problem in a diagnostic definition card that will guide subsequent efforts.
Next, we will do a root-cause analysis:In Chapter4, we will diagnose the problem by
first identifying all the possible reasons why we have the problem before focusing on the
important one(s). To do that, we will build a diagnosis issue map:a graphical breakdown
of the problem that breaks it down into its various dimensions and lays out all the possible
causes exactly once. Finally, we will associate concrete hypotheses with specific parts of the
map, test these hypotheses, and capture our conclusions.
Third, identify alternative ways to solve the problem (the how). Knowing what the
problem is and why we have it, we move on to what people commonly think of when talking
about problem solving:that is, actively looking for solutions. In Chapter5, we will start by
formulating a solution key question, this one formulated with a how root, and framing it. Next,
we will construct a solution issue map and, mirroring the processes of Chapters3 and 4, we
will formulate hypotheses for specific branches of the map and test these hypotheses. This
will take us to the decision-making stage:selecting the best solutions out of all the possible
ones (Chapter6).
Fourth, implement the solution (the do). Finally, we will implement the solu-
tion, which starts with convincing key stakeholders that our conclusions are right, so
Chapter7 provides guidelines to craft and deliver a compelling message. Then, we will
discuss implementation considerations and, in particular, effectively leading teams
(Chapter8).
What, Why, How, Do. Thats our process in fourwords.
In conclusion, Chapter9 has some ideas for dealing with complications and offers some
reflections on the overall approach.
Note that the books primary objective is to provide a way to go through the entire
problem-solving process, so it presents one tool to achieve each task and discusses that one

2 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 3

tool in depth, rather than presenting several alternatives in less detail.2 Most of these tools
and ideas are not mine; they come from numerous academic disciplines and practitioners
that provide the conceptual underpinnings for my approach. Ihave referenced this material
as consistently as Icould so that the interested reader can review its theoretical and empiri-
cal bases. Afew ideas are from my own observations, gathered over 15years of researching
these concepts, applying them in managerial settings, and teaching them to students, pro-
fessionals, and executives.

1. FINDINGHARRY
Lets pretend that we just received Johns phone call. Many of us would rush into action
relying on instinct. This can prove ineffective, however; for example, if the housekeeper is
indeed holding Harry hostage, as John thinks, there is little value in searching the neighbor-
hood. Similarly, if Harry has escaped, calling the police to tell them that the housekeeper is
keeping him hostage will nothelp.
WHAT. So finding Harry starts with understanding the problem and summarizing it in a
project definition card, or what card, as Figure 1.2 shows. This is the what part of the process.
You may decide that your project is finding Harry, which you want to do in a reasonable time
frame, perhaps 72 hours, and that to do so, you first need to understand why he is missing.

Project name: Find Harry the dog

Specific goals: 1. Understand why Harry is missing (why) Out of scope: Preventing him from going missing
(what you are 2. Identify best way to get him back (how) (what you are again in the future (both the how and
going to do) 3. Get him back (do) not going to do) the implementation)

Decision John and his wife Other key N/A

maker(s): stakeholders:

Timetable: Actions Needed Cumulative

time time
1. Frame the problem (define the what ) 2h 2h
2. Diagnose the problem (find the why)
Define the diagnostic key question and identify possible causes 4h 6h
Collect the diagnostic evidence, analyze, and draw conclusions 6h 12h
3. Identify solutions (find the how)
Define the solution key question and identify potential solutions 6h 18h
Collect evidence, analyze, and decide which solution(s) to implement 6h 24h
4. Implement the chosen solution(s) (do) 48h 72h
Resources: Money: Spend up to $150 for the why, $150 for the how, $300 for the do
People: Up to 3 people dedicated full time

Possible Speaking with housekeeper can backfire Mitigation Refrain from speaking with the
problems: actions: housekeeper until absolutely
necessary

FIGURE1.2: Aproject definition cardor what cardis useful to capture your plan in writing:what you
propose to do bywhen.

2. For the latter, see, for instance (Polya, 1945), (VanGundy,1988).

An Over view 3
4

Because someone is
keeping him from
Because he is leaving where he is
stuck somewhere
Because he, alone,
got stuck

Because he is
WHY is Harry roaming in a street
the dog
missing? Because he is Because he is
roaming in a public roaming in a park
place
Because he is Because he is
roaming freely roaming in another
public place

Because he is
roaming in a private
place

FIGURE1.3: Adiagnostic issue map helps identify and organize all the possible root causes of a
problem.

WHY. Next, you will want to diagnose the problem. This is the why part of the process.
Having identified a diagnostic key questionW hy is Harry the dog missing?you can
look for all the possible explanations and organize them in a diagnostic issue map, as in
Figure1.3.
When I present this case to students, someone usually dismisses the possibility of
Harry being held hostage as ridiculous. This is not as far fetched, however, as it might
look:Statistics show that there is such a thing as dognapping, as it is called, and it is actu-
ally on the rise.3 Others also question that someone would hold a dog hostage, but here,
too, there is a precedent:In 1934, Harvard students dognapped Yales bulldog mascot
Handsome Danand held him hostage on the eve of a YaleHarvard footballgame.4
From here, you can formulate formal hypotheses, identify the evidence that you need
to obtain to test them, conduct the analysis, and determine the root cause(s) of Harrys
disappearance.
HOW. Knowing why Harry is missing, we can now identify alternative ways to get
him back. This is the how part of the process. The procedure mirrors our diagnostic ap-
proach: We develop a solution definition card, draw an issue map (this time, a solution
issue map), formulate hypotheses, identify and gather the evidence necessary to test the
hypotheses, and draw conclusions.
This leads us to identify a number of possible ways to look for Harry. Because our re-
sources are limited, we cannot implement all these solutions simultaneously; therefore, we

3. (Leach,2013).
4. (Holley, 1997). One can only imagine the psychological damage to Yale students when they saw the next day their
beloved Dan in the newspaper happily eating a hamburger in front of John Harvards statue.

4 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 5

TABLE1.1: A Decision Tool Can Help Evaluate the Attractiveness of Competing

Solutions

Individual
likelihood Speed of Weighted
of success Timeliness success Low cost score Ranking
Weight 0.52 0.27 0.15 0.06
H1:Searching the 50 100 100 90 73 2
neighborhood
H3:Informing people likely to 100 100 80 100 97 1
know about missing animals
H4:Posting virtual 15 20 20 0 16 4
announcements
H5:Checking announcements 0 0 0 100 6 5
H6:Enabling Harry to come 30 90 100 100 61 3
back on his own

must discard some or, at least, decide in which order we should implement them. To do so,
we use a decision tool that considers the various attributes that we want to take into account
in our decision and assign each of them a weight. Then, we evaluate the performance of each
possible solution with respect to each attribute to develop a ranking, as Table 1.1shows.
DO. Now that we have identified how we will search for Harry, the strategizing part is
over, and it is time to implement our plan. The do part of the process starts by convincing
the key decision makers and other stakeholders that we have come to the right conclusions.
We then move on to agreeing on who needs to do what by when and then actually doing it.
The implementation also includes monitoring the effectiveness of our approach and cor-
recting it as needed.
The case is a real storyalthough Ichanged Harrys name, to protect his privacyand
we did find him after a few hours. This problem is relatively simple and time-constrained;
therefore, it does not need the depth of analysis to which we are taking it. It provides a
roadmap, however, for solving complex, ill-defined, and nonimmediate problems (CIDNI,
pronounced seed-nee). As such, we will come back to Harry in each chapter to illustrate
how the concepts apply in a concrete example.

2. SOLVING COMPLEX, ILL-D EFINED,

AND NONIMMEDIATE PROBLEMS
A problem can be defined as a difference between a current state and a goal state.5 Problem
solving, the resolution of such a difference, is omnipresent in our lives in diverse forms, from

5. See, for instance (David H.Jonassen, 2000), (G. F.Smith,1988).

An Over view 5
6

executing simple taskssay, choosing what socks to wear on a given dayto tackling com-
plex, long-term projects, such as curing cancer. This book is about solving the latter:the
complex, ill-defined, and nonimmediate problems.
Complex means that the problems current and goal states, along with obstacles encoun-
tered along the way, are diverse, dynamic during their resolution, interdependent, and/or
not transparent.6 Ill-defined problems have unclear initial and final conditions and paths to
the solution.7 They usually do not have one right solution;8 in fact, they may not have
any solution at all.9 They usually are one of a kind.10 Finally, nonimmediate means that the
solver has some time, at least a few days or weeks, to identify and implement a solution. At
the organizational level, a CIDNI problem for a company may be to develop its marketing
strategy. On a global scale, CIDNI problems include ensuring environmental sustainability,
reducing extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, and all the
other United Nations Millennium Development Goals.11
A fundamental characteristic of CIDNI problems is that, because they are ill-defined,
their solutions are at least partly subjective. Indeed, appropriate solutions depend on your
knowledge and values, and what may be the best solution for you may not be for some-
one else.12 Another implication is that the problem-solving process is only roughly linear.
Despite our best efforts to define the problem at the onset of the project, new information
surfacing during the resolution may prompt us to modify that definition later on. In fact,
such regression to a previous step may happen at any point along the resolution process.13
Think about what makes your problem CIDNI. Problems can be challenging for vari-
ous reasons, and understanding these may help you choose a direction in which to look for
a solution. Some problems are complex because they are computationally intensive. Achess
player, for instance, cannot think of all alternativesand all the opponents repliesuntil
late in the game, when the universe of possibilities is much reduced. Chess, however, is a
fairly well-defined environment.
Contrast this with opening a hotel in a small village in the Caribbean and discovering
that obtaining a license will require bribing local officials. The challenge here is not compu-
tational, but the problem is ill-defined in important ways:Do you still want to carry out the
project if bribery is a requirement? If you want to avoid bribing officials, how can you do so
successfully? Andsoon.
Indeed, ill definition stems in many ways when human interactions are part of the pic-
ture. Consider the case of a graduate student ready to defend her dissertation only to dis-
cover that two key members of her jury have just had a bitter argument and cannot sit in the
same room for more than five minutes without fighting. How should she proceed?

6. (Wenke & Frensch, 2003)[p.90], (Mason & Mitroff, 1981)[p.5].

7. (Simon, 1974), (David H.Jonassen, 1997), (Pretz etal., 2003)[p.4], (S. M.Smith & Ward, 2012)[p.462], (Mason
& Mitroff, 1981)[p.30].
8. (Bardwell,1991).
9. (David H.Jonassen,2000).
10. (Brightman,1978).
11. (United Nations).
12. (Hayes, 1989)[p.280].
13. See Rittels wicked problems (Rittel,1972).

6 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 7

Or consider the case, during World War II, of the British Navy capturing an Enigma cryp-
tography machine, which gave them deep insight into the operation of German submarines.
This gave them a unique opportunity to reduce the risk of attacks to their convoys. However,
they could not use this information in any way that would tip off the Germans that their naval
codes had been broken; indeed, the Germans would then change the Enigma codes or intro-
duce a new communication system. How then should the British best use this information?14
So, rather than thinking of CIDNI problems as one type of difficult situation, you may
be better served to think about what makes your problem a CIDNI problem, given that
doing so may indicate where you can search out solutions. If a problem is computationally
complex, for example, exploring the support that computers and artificial intelligence can
bring could be of great support. In a situation that has significant moral, emotional, or psy-
chological components, however, such support is not likely to be of muchhelp.

3. COMPLEMENTING SPECIALIZATION
WITHGENERALISTSKILLS
Its not so much that STEM [science, technology, engineering, mathematics]
graduates do not know how to solve technical problems, because, in fact, they do, but
that these graduates lack the non-technical skills needed for thejob.
Thats one of the points that Meghan Groome, the executive director of education and
public programs at the NewYork Academy of Sciences, emphasized[].
The problem is universal, Groome explained. Students are not learning how to
network, manage their time, or to work together. These skills, Groome insisted, are
those that students can learn if they take the right courses.15

There is widespread agreement that an ideal CIDNI problem solver (or problem-solving
team) is T-shaped, that is, both a specialist in the relevant disciplines and a generalist.16
Formal training programs usually focus on the discipline-specific side, the vertical bar of
the T, but they fall short on the generalist front,17 which is problematical. For instance, a
report by the National Academies notes that, because real-world problems are ill defined and
knowledge intensive, they often differ considerably from the ones students solve in class.18
This leads to some students inability to translate what they learn on campus to practical situa-
tions,19 what physics Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman called a fragility of knowledge.20

14. See (Blair, 2000)[p.298].

15. (Weiner,2014).
16. (Perkins & Salomon, 1989), (Gauch, 2003)[pp.23], (Grasso & Burkins, 2010)[pp.110]; (Kulkarni & Simon,
1988) [p. 140], (Sanbonmatsu, Posavac, Kardes, & Mantel, 1998), (Sheppard, Macatangay, Colby, & Sullivan,
2009)[p.175], (Katzenbach, 1993), (Savransky, 2002)[p.18], (M. U.Smith, 1991)[pp.1015], (Brown & Wyatt,2010).
17. (Theocharis & Psimopoulos, 1987), (Manathunga, Lant, & Mellick,2006).
18. (National Research Council, 2012)[p.76]. See also (Manathunga, Lant, & Mellick,2007).
19. (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989), (David H.Jonassen, 2000). See also (National Research Council,
2014)[pp.5355].
20. (Feynman, 1997)[pp.3637].

An Over view 7
8

Breadth of
knowledge across Strategic
Breadth
disciplines makes Thinking
you a generalist
D
e
Depth of knowledge
p
in a discipline makes
you a specialist t
h

Ideal problem solver or

problem-solving team is = generalist + specialist
T shaped

FIGURE1.4: Effective CIDNI problem solvers are both generalists and specialists; this book helps
improve generalist skills.

Another drawback of focusing solely on the vertical bar of the T is that it limits innova-
tion as we fall prey to the not invented here syndrome. Yet, there is considerable value
in stealing ideas from other disciplines. For instance, consider the use of checklists that
first appeared in airplane cockpits and are now being increasingly used in operating rooms.
Despite strong initial resistance by surgeons, their adoption has led to significant reduc-
tions in postsurgical complications.21 Similarly, medical practices also are adopted by other
disciplines:The rise in the 1990s of evidence-based medicinethe reliance on evidence
from well-designed and conducted research to guide decision makinghas helped initiate
a practice of evidence-based management in the last decade.22 In both these cases, an ability
to see value in a field different than ones own was needed and paid off. Developing an abil-
ity to see past the surface features of problems to concentrate on the underlying structure,
and recognizing that this may be achieved by looking at problems in other disciplines is,
therefore, beneficial. As we will see in the ensuing chapters, it is also a requirement for good
analogical thinking.23
In short, Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving offers ways to develop that hori-
zontal, strategic, cross-disciplinary knowledge necessary to be an effective CIDNI problem
solver (see Figure1.4).
This approach enables you to tackle any problem, even ones in which you are not a spe-
cialist, in a structured and creative way. And in todays economy, where organizations are
constantly reinventing themselves, this skill makes you a very desirable asset.24

21. (Gawande,2009).
22. (Rousseau, 2006), (Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007), (Rousseau, 2012), (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b), (Pfeffer & Sutton,
2006a).
23. See, for instance (Keith J.Holyoak & Koh, 1987), (National Research Council, 2011a) [pp.136138].
24. (National Association of Colleges and Employers, 2014)[p.4].

8 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 9

4. FIVE KEY GUIDELINES THAT SUPPORT

OUR APPROACH
Before we look in detail at the four steps of the problem-solving process, lets conclude this
overview by presenting five key principles that each apply to varioussteps.

1. USE DI VERGENT AND C ONVERGENT THINK ING

Effective problem solving requires both divergent and convergent thinking patterns.25
As Figure 1.5 shows, this occurs at each step of the process. Diverging, you think cre-
atively: stretching your mind to identify new possibilities. Converging, you think criti-
cally:gathering data to analyze each possibility, compare it with others, and select the best.
Whenever possible, you should defer judgment, that is, you should keep idea creation
(or ideation26) separate from idea evaluation.27 This is to avoid restricting your creativity.28
We will address this again in Chapters3and5.

1. Frame the 2. Diagnose 3. Find potential 4. Implement

problem the problem solutions solution

WHAT WHY HOW DO

Diverge Converge
(creative) (critical)

Identify Select one Identify Select Identify Select Identify Implement

potential potential relevant potential relevant potential one
frames root one(s) solutions one(s) courses of
causes action

FIGURE1.5: Effective complex problem solving requires alternating divergent and convergent thinking.

25. See, for instance (Basadur, Runco, & Vega, 2000), (Adams, 2001)[pp.120121], (Assink, 2006), (Basadur, Graen,
& Scandura, 1986). For a review of divergent thinking in generating alternatives, see (Reiter-Palmon & Illies,2004).
26. (S. M.Smith & Ward, 2012)[p.465], (VanGundy, 1988)[p.5], (Adams, 2001)[p.121].
27. Although we prefer deferring judgment, an alternative approach allows applying some convergent thinking during
idea production. See (Basadur, 1995)for a review.
28. See (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 2002)[p.53].

An Over view 9
10

2. USE I SSUEMAPS
A central tool in our methodology is the issue map, a graphical breakdown of a question that
shows its various dimensions vertically and progresses into more detail horizontally. There
are many types of cartographic representations of problems, including trees, diagrams, and
maps. One attribute they share is that they expose the structure of the problem, thereby pro-
moting better understanding. Graphical breakdowns of arguments, for example, have been
shown to significantly improve peoples critical thinking.29 We will discuss maps extensively
in Chapters3and5.
Figure 1.6 shows a typical issue map. It starts with a key question on the left, in this case
a solution key question, with a how root. It then lists and organizes solutions on the right.
These solutions do not have to be desirable but, applying the principle of deferred judg-
ment of the previous section, we refrain from evaluating them until later in the process.
Maps enable us to consider all possibilities exactly once:we do not consider a possibil-
ity more than once, and we do not leave out any. That is, maps structure the universe of
answers in a set of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive branches (or MECE, pro-
nounced me-see).
Mutually exclusive (ME) means no overlaps. Two events are mutually exclusive
when the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other. Organizing the answers
to a question in mutually exclusive branches means that you consider each one only once,
thereby not duplicating efforts. To think ME, you must think in a convergent pattern, deter-
mining whether branches are truly distinct.
So if you set yourself to answer the question, How can Igo from NewYork City to
London? and you reply by first dividing means of transportation between flying and
traveling by sea, you are organizing the possible solutions of your problem in a ME way,
because you cannot be flying and traveling by sea at the sametime.
Collectively exhaustive (CE) means no gaps. Events are collectively exhaustive
when they include all possible outcomes. So the branches of an issue map are CE when they
include all the possible answers to the key question. To think CE you must think divergently,

Using a plane

Using a helicopter
Flying
Using a balloon
How can I
go from Using a rocket
NYC to
London? Traveling with a
Traveling on the boat or another
surface floating device
Traveling by sea
Swimming

Using a submarine

FIGURE1.6: Issue maps graphically expose the structure of a question.

29. (Twardy,2010).

10 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 11

Using a plane

Using a helicopter
Flying
Using a balloon
Using a rocket
Using
conventional
Traveling with a
means
Traveling on the boat or another
surface floating device
How can I go Traveling by sea Swimming
from NYC to
London? Using a
submarine

Using a bridge
Traveling by land
Using a tunnel
Using
unconventional Teletransporting
means myself

Bringing London
to NYC

FIGURE1.7: Part of the process is to think divergently to identify as many solutions as possible so as to
leave nogaps.

asking yourself repeatedly, What else could be an answer to this question? So you must be
very creative; Chapters3 and 5 will give you ideas to do that, such as relying on analogies
or existing frameworks.
When you are identifying options to go from NYC to London, CE thinking means that
you are considering all possibilities. Although we initially thought that traveling by sea or air
were the only possibilities, forcing ourselves to be CE results in an expanded list, as shown
in Figure 1.7. The possibility of traveling by sea or air occurs quickly to people thinking
about this situation, so lets stick these options into a branch that we call conventional.
Then, to be CE, we should have a nonconventional branch. What could this include?
Well, people also travel by land. What else? Perhaps teletransport. What else? Well, maybe
Ishould not travel to London; instead, London should travel to me. And we could go into
further details there: perhaps we could have the people I was going to meet in London
come to me or maybe we could create a London where Iam. That sounds far-fetched. True.
But, first, abiding by the principle of deferred judgment, we should not care whether it is
far-fetchednot until later. And second, even if it is far-fetched, there are precedents:Las
Vegas has done it with the Eiffel Tower, so why not us? Again, these new options may not
be desirable. What is important is that, if we end up discarding them, we will do so because
of a conscious decision, not because we forgot to consider them. We will talk more about
MECE thinking in Chapters3and5.

3. AC QUIRE THERI GHTSK I LLS

In 2001, the United Kingdoms Research Councils and the Arts and Humanities Research
board released a joint statement highlighting the skills that doctoral students are expected

An Over view 11
12

TABLE 1.2: Useful Skills in Researcha

You should be able to

Research Techniques Identify and solve problems
Think originally, independently, and critically
Critically assess your and others findings
Document, synthesize, report, and reflect on progress
Apply appropriately the relevant research techniques in yourfield
Identify and access appropriate bibliographical material and other
information
Research Environment Conduct yourself appropriately (legally, ethically, responsibly,etc.)
Understand the context in which your research takesplace
Understand process for funding
Project Management Set goals and intermediate milestones
Prioritize activities
Personal Effectiveness Be willing and able to acquire knowledge
Be creative, innovative, and original
Be self-reliant, work independently, and show initiative
Be flexible and open-minded
Be self-aware and identify own trainingneeds
Be self-disciplined, motivated, and thorough
Recognize your boundaries and ask for help as needed
Communication Write clearly with an appropriatestyle
Build coherent and compelling arguments tailored to audiences
Support the learning ofothers
Contribute to the public understanding of your research field
Networking and Develop and maintain cooperative networks
Team Work Manage effectively relationships up, down, and sideways in your
organization and elsewhere
Understand your contribution and impact to the success of teams
(formal and informal)
Listen, give and receive feedback, and respond appropriately
Career Management Partake in ongoing professional development
Identify key success factors for progression in your targeted
professionalpath
Take ownership of your career progression:set challenging yet
realistic goals and identify ways to improve your employability
Demonstrate insight in the transferability of your skill set to other
disciplines
Present your profile through the use of curriculum vitae/rsums,
cover letters, and interviews
Strike an appropriate worklife balance

After Research Councils, United Kingdom. (2001).

a
 13

to develop during their research training.30 Table 1.2 summarizes some of these skills. These
are relevant to you even if you are not working on a doctorate. Indeed, solving problems
requires doing research: identifying which evidence you need to gather and assessing it.
We will talk about working with evidence in Chapters4and6.
This book provides pathways to develop many of these skills. You may find value using
this list as a roadmap for your own development.31 Alternatively, you may elaborate your
own list. But you may also face a problem before you get a chance to develop the skills;
when that happens, and you should probably assume that it will, you should consider team-
ing up with people who have complementary skills.
Enlist others. Working with others may increase quality and visibility. It used to be
that the works of lone geniuses were the most impactful, but this might be changing.
Collaborative work has resulted in many contributions, including the discovery of DNA,
the creation of the Linux operating system, and the development of the Internet.32 Also,
scientific papers with multiple authors are cited more than twice as frequently as those by
single authors.33
Leverage diversity. When Iteach this method in a course, it is a practical workshop. Each
student brings a project that he or she is interested in and we use these as case studies. Students
come from all disciplines, but they must help others and seek help from others (a large chunk
of their grade depends on it) and they need to sit next to a different colleague in each session.
Although this collaboration across disciplines does not come naturally to many, they quickly
see its value:People with different training bring different perspectives, which helps each of
them be more creative. This is in line with observations from a committee of the National
Research Council:Analysis improves when analysts with diverse perspectives and comple-
mentary expertise collaborate to work on intelligence problems.34 We will talk extensively
about the value of collaboration and diversity throughout thebook.

4. S IMPL IFY TOREVEAL THEUNDERLYING

STRUCTURE
Simplicity is central to numerous practices in many fields. In the scientific method, the par-
simony principle recommends that, all other things being equal, the simplest theory that fits
the facts should be preferred.35 Copernicus used it to propose his model of motion of the
earth (the heliocentric one, i.e., a daily revolution around its axis and an annual revolution
around the sun) over the then-favored Ptolemaic one. Copernicuss model did not generate
a better fit, but it was simpler.36

30. (Research Councils UK,2001).

31. For other lists, see (Reeves, Denicolo, Metcalfe, & Roberts, 2012)and (Careers Research and Advisory Centre,2010).
32. (Ness,2012).
33. (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi,2007).
34. (National Research Council, 2011a) [p.61]. See also (National Research Council, 2014)[p.64].
35. (Gauch, 2003)[pp.269270].
36. (Gauch, 2003)[p.273].

An Over view 13
14

In design, simplicity is often linked to quality and usability.37 At Apple, Steve Jobs viewed
it as the ultimate sophistication, which resulted in many Apple products not having the fea-
tures of their competitors and yet outselling them.38
Though the end product may be simple, the process to get there usually is not. Here is
Steve Jobs again:When you start looking at a problem and it seems really simple with all
these simple solutions, you do not really understand the complexity of the problem. And
your solutions are way too oversimplified. Then you get into the problem, and you see its
really complicated. And you come up with all these convoluted solutions thats where
most people stop, and the solutions tend to work for a while. But the really great person will
keep on going and find the key, underlying principle of the problem. And come up with
a beautiful elegant solution that works.39
I have seen this happen multiple times. In my course, my students must reformulate
their problem to make it understandable to the rest of us. This is difficult for some of them,
particularly those versed in highly technical subjects, and some invariably claim that ex-
pressing their problem in simple, accessible terms is not possible. They all, however, even-
tually discover that it is. Moving beyond the surface features of their disciplines, they learn
to focus on their problems underlying structure, and by expressing it in simple terms, they
enable others to assist them in solvingit.
This challenge of simplification is worthy not just because they now have a larger and more
diverse network of people to help them, but because it also forces them to clarify their under-
standing of their problem:having to do away with the jargon of their field, they can no longer
present their problem in the terms that they have heard it expressed by specialists. They now
have to answer dumb questions that they have been trained not to ask, which forces them to
understand why (or why not!) these questions are dumb. Moving beyond surface character-
istics to focus on the structure of problems is also an essential component of successful analo-
gies,40 so by going through this process, students learn to see similarities among disciplines.
Transcend thats interesting:understand the so what? Gathering lots of data
about a problem is not necessarily helpful; in fact, it can be counterproductive (see Table
1.3). So finding that something is interesting should not be an end point but, rather, a
starting point to dig deeper. Analyze your thinking:If you find something interesting, why
is it so? What is the so what? of your finding? Keep on assaulting your problem with criti-
cal thinking until you reach simplicity. We will talk more about this in Chapters3, 4,and5.

5. DO NOT FOOL YOURSELF (AND OTHERS)

In his address to the graduating class of 1974 at Caltech, Richard Feynman urged students
to not fool yourselfand you are the easiest person to fool.41 This is in line with findings

37. (Karvonen,2000).
38. (Thomke & Feinberg,2009).
39. Cited in (Thomke & Feinberg,2009).
40. (Keith J.Holyoak, 2012), (Keith J.Holyoak & Koh, 1987), (National Research Council, 2011b) [pp.136138].
41. (Feynman,1998).

14 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 15

TABLE 1.3:
Empirical Findings Contradict Conventional Wisdom Along the
Problem-solving Process; The Book Addresses Some of These Differencesa

Conventional Wisdom Empirical Findings Mitigation Tactics

The more More information is not necessarily Seek only diagnostic evidence.
information, better; in fact, it can provide unwarranted Ensure that sources of
the better. confidence and dilute the diagnosticity of information are independent.
other information items (Arkes & Kajdasz, See Chapters4 and 6.
2011, p.157).
The more Even experts may lack a strong Seek feedback on your
confident, the relation between confidence and predictions, hold yourself
more likely we are accuracy (Dawson etal., 1993; accountable, and consider
to be correct. Arkes & Kajdasz, 2011, p.147). contrary evidence (Arkes &
Kajdasz, 2011, pp.149150).
See Chapter4.
Expertise only Expertise comes with preconceptions Use experts and novices
has upsides. that can introduce biases when judiciously. See Chapters4
considering data (Arkes & Kajdasz, 2011, and 8.
p.146) and an inability to
modify old thinking (Pretz, Naples, &
Sternberg, 2003, p.15).
Intuition is Humans are heavily biased, so Decide quickly only if you are
trustworthy. intuition is not necessarily trustworthy likely to pick the right answer, the
(Bazerman & Moore, 2008). cost of error is low, and swiftness
brings high rewards (Kahneman,
2011, p.79). See Chapters3 and 5.
Problem solving Framing a problem and diagnosing Do not jump into identifying
is primarily about it appropriately can be of paramount solutions before framing and
finding solutions. importance (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). diagnosing your problem
appropriately. See Chapters2
and 3.

a
The table is adapted from (Makridakis & Gaba, 1998)and (Arkes & Kajdasz, 2011)[pp.143168].
For an example of how more information can result in worse outcomes in a medical setting, see
(Welch, 2015)[pp.8495].

on biases:humans are biased in many ways, often without realizing it. For instance, we have
a high propensity to be overconfident;42 to think that, had we been asked, we would have
predicted an events occurrence in advance (hindsight bias);43 or to interpret information
partially (confirmation bias).44
Table 1.3 summarizes some common ways in which we fool ourselves, compares those
to empirical findings, and proposes remedies.
Adopt an evidence-based approach. In medicine, the belief that physicians actions
should be guided by evidence dates back at least 200years.45 And yet, many destructive

42. (Fischhoff, 1982)[p.432].

43. (Arkes, Wortmann, Saville, & Harkness,1981).
44. (Klayman & Ha, 1987), (Klayman & Ha, 1989), (Nickerson,1998).
45. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [p.13].

An Over view 15
16

practices remain in use; in some settings, over 30% of patients are estimated to receive care
that is not consistent with scientific evidence.46
The modern evidence-based medicine movement advocates for integrating the best ex-
ternal evidence available with ones expertise and the specifics of ones situation.47 Started
in the early 1990s, it has garnered considerable attention and is credited for dramatically
speeding up the process of finding effective treatments instead of relying on intuition and
personal experience.48
Some disciplines, such as management, are now trying to emulate it,49 while others, in-
cluding the intelligence community, have been strongly advised to follow the trend.50 This
book argues that you should adopt an evidence-based approach to problem solving and we
will talk about how to do this across chapters.
Confidence-wise, brace yourself. Steve Jobss earlier quote illustrates how, when we ap-
proach new problems, we sometimes feel that we instantaneously understand them and know
how to solve them. This is, in part, because we bring our own preconceptions. The four-step
process described in this book aims at replacing these preconceptions and the unwarranted
confidence they generate with warranted confidence. Although we hope that, at the end of it,
you are rightfully confident in your views, getting there will probably be tumultuous.
Going through a rigorous evidence-based analysis of your preconceived ideas, you may
soon feel that you become unsure of what you know and do not know, and your overall
confidence will plunge before it rises. It is important to be able to welcome these doubts,
because they are an integral part of Socratic wisdom, that is, of knowing what you know
and knowing what you do not know.51
Replacing unwarranted confidence requires you to take the risk of reducing your con-
fidence, at least briefly. Although this may sound demoralizing, see it as progress:You may
not yet know what the right paradigm is, but at least you now know that the one you trusted
waswrong.
Following this approach, this book advocates that you base your practices on sound
logic and solid evidence, synthesizing reliable external information with your own exper-
tise, and integrating that approach with the judicious use of intuition. The book presents
tools to help youdoso.
Respect the scientific ideal. Cambridges fluid dynamist Michael McIntyre defines
respecting the scientific ideal as attempting to keep an open mind while deploying logical
thinking, putting up with nagging uncertainty, being willing to admit ignorance, avoiding
prior judgments about candidate hypotheses, and remaining skeptical about any reason to
favor a theory other than the cautious application of Occams razor (see Chapter4). It also

46. (Grol, 2001), (Heyland, Dhaliwal, Day, Jain, & Drover, 2004), (Rauen, Chulay, Bridges, Vollman, & Arbour, 2008).
See also (Golec, 2009), (Sheldon etal., 2004), (Straus & Jones,2004).
47. (Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996), (Straus, Glasziou, Richardson, & Haynes, 2011)[p.1].
48. (National Research Council, 2011a) [p.28].
49. See, for instance (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010), (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b, 2007), (Rousseau, 2006), (Rousseau
& McCarthy,2007).
50. (National Research Council, 2011b) [pp.9597], (National Research Council, 2011a) [pp.24; 88, 91,92].
51. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [pp.5253].

16 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 17

includes revising ones position when new evidence appears and taking a look from various
viewpoints. An illustration of respecting the scientific ideal is being the skeptical juror in the
movie Twelve Angry Men, the one who insists on having one last look at the evidence in a
murder trial when the other eleven already think that they know the truth.52 These charac-
teristics and a few more are all central to the approach described in thisbook.

5. SUMMARY:C IDNI PROBLEM SOLV ING

INA NUTSHELL
Our approach to solving complex, ill-defined, and nonimmediate problems allows us to go
from where we are to where we want to be, namely, to solve problems with a four-step pro-
cess (What, Why, How, Do) that rests upon five key principles (see Figure1.8).
We can visualize these key principles as a bridge with three pillars:using convergent and
divergent thinking, using maps, and acquiring the right skills. In turn, these three pillars rely
on two layers of foundation:simplifying and not fooling yourself.
Do not over-design your resolution process. Before we jump into the heart of the
matter, Iwould like to stress one last point:the methodology described in the book assumes
that you have the time and resources to conduct an in-depth analysis of all stages and that
it is beneficial to do so. If this is not the casefor whatever reason, maybe because you do
not have enough time to conduct a full-blown analysis or maybe because you already have
trustworthy answers for, say, the diagnosticyou should cut some corners. We will discuss

1. Frame the 2. Diagnose the 3. Find potential 4. Implement Where

Where
problem problem solutions solution you want
you are
WHAT WHY HOW DO to be

Use convergent and Use maps Get the right

divergent skills
thinking
Think Enlist
MECE others
Leverage
diversity

Diverge Converge

Simplify to reveal the underlying structure

Ask so what?

N
Dont fool yourself (and others)
Adopt an evidence-based approach W E
Confidence-wise, brace yourself S

FIGURE1.8: Five key principles support our approach to problem solving.

52. (McIntyre,1998).

An Over view 17
18

this further in Chapter9, but you should keep this in mind as you walk your way through
the resolution process.
So, if investing effort in a specific part of the resolution process seems inappropriate for
your specific problem, first question this feeling, because it is easy to bypass, say, thought-
ful problem framing even in situations where it is precisely what you should do. But, if after
careful consideration, you think that you should fast-forward over some steps, thendoso.
Having laid out a general description of our problem-solving process and an overview
of each chapter, we can now move to a more detailed analysis. This starts with Chapter2
giving some guidelines for framing the problem.

NOTES
Steps in solving problems. Our approach has four steps, but this is not universal. For
instance, Basadur presents a three-step process (problem finding, problem solving, solution
implementation).53 The difference here is that we have broken the problem-finding stage
into two, to separate the what from the why, in an effort to bring light to the importance
of these stages. Other approaches exist:Woods identified 150 published strategies used in
numerous disciplines.54
Treating symptoms. Peter Senge calls treating symptoms, rather than the problem
itself, shifting the burden. This may result in having the problem recur.55
The two dimensions of the T. Being a specialist requires domain-specific or local
knowledge and skills. Being a generalist relies on knowledge and skills that are transferrable
across disciplines, that is, domain independent.
From T to . The T-shaped metaphor can extend to -shaped or even comb-shaped
skill sets where individuals have a breadth of knowledge and expertise in more than one
field.56
Improve your foxiness. Related to the specialist/generalist differentiation is that of
hedgehogs versus foxes, a dichotomy invented by philosopher Isaiah Berlin.57 Hedgehogs
are specialized, stubborn, order-seeking, and confident. Foxes are multidisciplinary, self-
critical, and cautious; they accept ambiguity and contradiction as an inherent part of life.
Having compared the two groups, political scientist Philip Tetlock observes that foxes are
better forecasters than hedgehogs.58
Strategic thinking in complex problem solving. We define strategic thinking in com-
plex problem solving, loosely following Beaufre: Facing a problemthat is, a gap between a
current and a desired positionsit is a process that includes design, analysis, and synthesis.

53. (Basadur,1995).
54. (Woods,2000).
55. See (Leung & Bartunek, 2012)[pp.170173].
56. (National Research Council, 2014)[pp.6263].
57. See (National Research Council, 2011b) [pp. 155156], (Silver, 2012) [pp. 5373].
58. (Tetlock, 2005) [pp. 2021].

18 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 19

Design to identify the key activities needed to bridge the gap, analysis to assemble and pro-
cess the necessary data, and synthesis to elect a solution from various alternative courses
of action. In the process, strategic thinking requires rationality, intuition, and innovation.59
Beaufres view: Strategic thinking is a mental process, both abstract and rational, that com-
bines psychological and material data. The process relies on a great capacity for analysis and
synthesis; analysis is necessary to assemble the data on which to make a diagnosis, synthesis
is necessary to extract the diagnosis from the data. The diagnosis amounts to a choice be-
tween alternatives.60
Taxonomies of problems. There are many types of problems and many taxonomies
to describe them. Savransky defines routine problems as those where all critical steps are
known (a critical step is one that is required to reach the solution).61 Inventive problems are
a subset of nonroutine ones where both the solution and at least one critical step are un-
known. Also, a closed problem is one with a finite number of correct solutions.62
Biases. They abound! (See Bazerman & Moore (2008, pp.1341) for a review.)
Using case studies. Using my students problems as cases for the class is an example of
problem-based learning, which has shown superior long-term retention and skill develop-
ment. (Traditional methods, in turn, are superior for short-term retention as measured by
standardized exams.)63

59. See also (Graetz, 2002), (Mintzberg, 1994), (Liedtka, 1998), (Heracleous,1998).
60. (Beaufre, 1963)[p.23].
61. (Savransky, 2002)[p.4].
62. (Savransky, 2002)[p.5]. For more on taxonomies of problems, see also (G. F.Smith, 1988), (M. U.Smith, 1991),
(Bassok & Novick, 2012), (Kotovsky, 2003). See also (David H.Jonassen, 2000)[p.67] for a description of well-defined
and ill-defined problems. For tame, wicked, and critical problems and how they relate to managers and leaders, see (Grint,
2005)[p.1473], (Rittel,1972).
63. (Strobel & van Barneveld, 2009), (David H.Jonassen, 2011)[pp.153158].

An Over view 19
20
 21

CHAPTER2

FRAME THEPROBLEM

R esearchers have discovered that when we are confronted with a new

problem, it is common for us to have a mistaken impression of what the actual problem is.1
Based on my own experience, Iagree. Having coached people in hundreds of cases, Ihave
yet to find an instance where the problems original formulation was the one that we eventu-
ally retained. So solving effectively complex, ill-defined, nonimmediate problems (CIDNI)
is first about asking good questions, or defining clearly what you want to do. This chapter
shows how to frame the problem and capture it on a problem definition card. It goes on
to cover the next step in the analysis:framing the diagnosis, which we will also capture in
acard.

1. FRAME THEPROJECT
Understanding what the problem is and is not, and writing it down, is important because
this helps clarify your project and build a shared understanding across the team.2 This can
prove to be more difficult, however, than it might appear at first. To help you out, you may
want to use a template for the problem definition cardor the what cardsuch as the one
shown in Figure2.1.3
To illustrate, take Harrys case. Harry has just gone missing. What is our problem? Get
him back? Understand why he went missing? Ensure that he does not go missing again in
the future? Something else? Many people would agree that getting him back is what mat-
ters, at least for now. Fine, but how we go about finding him depends in large part on why

1. (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986)[p.31], (Rozenblit & Keil, 2002). For corroboration of the importance of problem
definition, see also (L. L.Thompson, 2012)[p.186], (Markman, Wood, Linsey, Murphy, & Laux, 2009)[pp.9495],
and (Kaplan, 2011)[pp.3940].
2. Note that, in our approach, we use problem and project interchangeably, same with goals and objectives. Highly
complex projectssay, designing and implementing a regional highway systemmay call for more details in the proj-
ect plan and may require us to differentiate these terms, although Ihave not found a consistent taxonomy. See (Eisner,
2002)[pp.6790] or (Kerzner, 2003)[pp.377448] formore.
3. For an alternative template, see (Davis, Keeling, Schreier, & Williams,2007).
22

Project name:

Specific goals: Your main objectives Out of scope: Things that could be included in the
(what you are (what you are project but that you have decided to leave
going to do) not going to do) out

Decision Person(s) with the formal authority to decide Other key Persons who do not have formal authority
maker(s): the direction of the project, including killing it stakeholders: but can influence the scope and outcome
of the project or will be impacted by it

Timetable: Actions Needed Cumulative

time time
1. Frame the problem (define the what)
2. Diagnose the problem (find the why)
Define the diagnostic key question and identify possible causes
Collect the diagnostic evidence, analyze, and draw conclusions
3. Identify solutions (find the how)
Define the solution key question and identify possible solutions
Collect evidence, analyze, and decide which solution(s) to implement
4. Implement (do)

Resources: Resources (money, people, equipment, etc.) that you can dedicate to the project and for how long

Possible Things that can go wrong Mitigation Initiatives to proactively defuse the
problems: actions: possible problems

FIGURE2.1: Aproblem definition cardor what cardsummarizes vital information about the problem.

he went missing in the first place, so it seems logical to include this in our project. And what
about preventing him from going missing again in the future? Should that be included,too?

1.1. ANSWERING QUEST I ONS I S NOT ENOUGH;

YOU MUST IDENT IFY THEM,TOO
As we discussed in the first chapter, becoming better at solving well-defined problems is
not sufficient to enable you to solve ill-defined ones, because the latter requires additional
skills,4 such as framing the problem.
Just like the frame of a painting creates a clear boundary between what is part of the paint-
ing and what is not, problems must also be clearly framed. Problem framing, then, amounts
to defining what problem you are proposing to solve (and including it in the what card of
Figure 2.1). This is a critical activity because the frame you choose strongly influences your
understanding of the problem, thereby conditioning your approach to solving it. For an il-
lustration, consider Thibodeau and Broditskys series of experiments in which they asked
people for ways to reduce crime in a community. They found that the respondents sugges-
tions changed significantly depending on whether the metaphor used to describe crime
was as a virus or as a beast. People presented with a metaphor comparing crime to a virus
invading their city emphasized prevention and addressing the root causes of the problem,

4. See, for instance (Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003) [p. 9], (Singer, Nielsen, & Schweingruber, 2012) [p. 76],
( Jonassen, 2000), (DeHaan,2011).

22 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 23

such as eradicating poverty and improving education. On the other hand, people presented
with the beast metaphor focused on remediations:increasing the size of the police force
and prisons.5
Therefore, improving our ability to frame a problem may help us identify better solu-
tions.6 In some situations, when we are already familiar with the problem, this may require
us to resist conditioning, our own or someone elses.
Resist conditioning. Consider the anecdote about the routinization of monkeys:Put
five monkeys in a cage, hang a banana from the ceiling and place a ladder underneath. Soon
a monkey climbs the ladder to grab the banana. As soon as he touches the ladder, spray all
the others with coldwater.
Repeat the operation when a second monkey tries to climb the ladder and, indeed, until
they all learn the consequence of going after the banana. Soon, they will stop one another
from climbing the ladder. Next, put the water away and replace one of the original five mon-
keys. The new monkey sees the banana and tries to climb the ladder. However, the other
four, knowing the consequences, attack him. The new monkey has not experienced any
of the water, but he has learned that he should not climb. Then, substitute another of the
original monkeys with a newcomer. The new fellow sees the banana, tries to reach it but the
other fourincluding the one that has not seen any waterbeat him up, so he soon gives
up. Repeat the operation until you have removed all the original monkeys. Introduce a new
fellow and watch:even though none of the new monkeys have seen any water, they will all
happily explain to the newcomer that he should not try to get the banana. Consequently,
the new monkeys now all live under a banana, but none of them attempts to retrieve it.
Why? As far as they are concerned, for no other reason than because it is how it has always
been done aroundhere.7
Conditioning is omnipresent in our lives. Consider combating the obesity crisis in
North America. The traditional approach has been for physicians to stress the importance
of diet and exercise. That works, but only momentarily as people easily slip back into old
habits.8 However, resisting the conditioning of focusing on these solutions may yield better
results: observing that excise taxation helped reduce tobacco and alcohol consumption,
public policy expert Kelly Brownell and others are proposing that we consider taxing sug-
ared drinks.9
There may have been good reasons to think about a particular problem one way or
another in the past, but this does not mean that these reasons are still valid. Part of the
value of our methodology is to help you think about new ways to approach a problem.
This requires hard work, because these new ways, by definition, will not come natu-
rally to you. So, do not stay in your comfort zones, and certainly do not stick with the

5. (Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011). This is in line with studies by Kahneman and Tversky who obtained systematic
reversals of peoples preferred solutions to a problem by framing it in different ways (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). These
framing effects have been observed in many settings; see (Levin, Schneider, & Gaeth, 1998)for a review.
6. (Bardwell,1991).
7. After (Scapens,2006).
8. (Ness, 2012a) [p.21].
9. (Brownell etal., 2009). See also (Institute of Medicine, 2014)[pp.1314].

Frame the Problem 23

24

TABLE 2.1: We Think Using One of Two Systemsa

System 1Intuitive System 2Reflective

Unconscious, preconscious Conscious
Rapid Slow
Automatic Controlled
Low effort High effort
High capacity Low capacity
Associative Rule based
Intuitive Deliberative
Contextualized Abstract
a
After (Evans, 2012)[p.116]. See also (Kahneman, Lovallo, &
Sibony, 2011)for a friendly introduction of how the two thinking
systems impact decision making.

well-ask-this because-this-is-what-weve-always-asked approach. To overcome habitu-

ation, epidemiologist Roberta Ness recommends that we become better observers; in
particular, attend to details and question assumptions, so that we learn to see things in a
different way than what we expect.10
In other situations, particularly when we are first exposed to a new problem, we may
generate an opinion on the spot. Judicious framing in this case requires letting go of your
intuition and instead switching to deeper thinking.
Engage System 2 thinking. A theory in psychology states that we think using one of
two processes: System 1 thinking is intuitive: fast, emotional, automatic, and effortless.
System 2 is reflective: slower, effortful, and more analytic (see Table 2.1).11 Facing a prob-
lem, both our systems engage, but System 1 yields an answer faster.12 Nobel Prize laureate
Kahneman suggests that jumping to conclusions, that is, using System 1 thinking or intu-
ition, is appropriate if one is likely to pick the right answer, the cost of an occasional error
is low, and deciding quickly brings high rewards.13 That is, System 1 is good in situations
where (1) the environment is predictable (so what happened previously is a good predic-
tor of what will be likely to happen again); and (2) the person has had the opportunity to
learn the regularities of the environment through repeated exposure and feedback.14
When solving a CIDNI problem, it is likely that you will not meet with at least one of
these conditions. Therefore, in general you should not trust your intuition but, rather, use
System 2 thinking.15

10. (Ness, 2012b).

11. (Evans, 2012; Glckner & Witteman, 2010; Kahneman, 2003, 2011; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Stanovich &
West,2000).
12. (National Research Council, 2011)[p.123].
13. (Kahneman, 2011)[p.79].
14. (National Research Council, 2011)[p.122]. See also (Kahneman & Klein,2009).
15. See (Gawande, 2009)[pp.162170] for a description of how successful investors attribute their success to resisting
the urge to act based on System 1 thinking. Also, scuba divers are trained to pause before acting:Stop Breathe Think
Act (PADI,2009).

24 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 25

1.2. C ONS IDER VARI OUS ALTERNAT I VES

So, if you should not trust your experience and intuition, how should you define what your
problem is? In short, you should generate a pool of options to choose from and gain some
perspective to help you select a goodone.
Defer judgment. To improve creativity, it is usually a good idea to decouple idea gen-
eration from idea evaluation.16 Indeed, given that having high-quality ideas usually requires
first having lots of ideas,17 you should start by generating potential candidates without
judgingthem.
Enlist others. As you consider potential candidates for your frame, enlisting the as-
sistance of others may help increase your creativity.18 In fact, consider enlisting people who
know little about the problem and its context, because they can ask the dumb questions
that experts have been trained not to ask. Although asking dumb questions may make us
appear naive to experts, naivety can be an asset because it allows us to reconsider possibili-
ties that specialists reject.19
If you are the reviewer for a problem, you should ask the solvers to explain why they
chose one frame over another, and why they included specific aspects and rejected others.
Keep probing (its easy, keep asking why). Do not be fooled by their confidence: In an
evidence-based setting, statements such as, Ive been in this business; Iknow what Im talk-
ing about call for deeper investigation. As Cambridges criminologist Lawrence Sherman
puts it, evidence-based thinking asks only what is the evidence? and not who says so?.20

1.3. DESCRI BE THEPROJECT INA WHAT CARD

The idea behind using a what card such as that shown in Figure 2.1 is to crystalize our un-
derstanding of the problem. This is valuable because it helps us build a shared understand-
ing of what the project iswith both external audiences (decision maker(s) and other key
stakeholders) and within our own team.21 This will help reduce the likelihood of scope creep,
the gradual expansion of an unfolding project outside of its original objectives. Also, the
what card serves as a roadmap for future reference, which enables us to periodically step
back and validate that we are on target (time-, budget-, and quality-wise).
Going back to Figure 2.1, write the name of your project at the top of the card. On the
second row, specify what the project is and what it is not. In Harrys case, once we gener-
ate various candidates for our goals and discuss with our friend John, we realize that we
should first identify why Harry is missing before identifying how to get him back and actu-
ally getting him back (Figure 2.2). It would be perfectly acceptable to include actions for

16. See, for instance (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 2002)[p.53].

17. (L. Thompson, 2003), (Adams, 2001)[p.121].
18. (L. Thompson,2003).
19. See (Berger, 2010)[pp.2128] for how designers leverage their relative ignorance to achieve breakthrough results.
20. (Sherman, 2002)[p.221].
21. (Eisner, 2002)[pp.6768].

Frame the Problem 25

26

Time

1 2 3
Identify Identify DO: Identify HOW DO: Prevent
WHY Harry HOW to get Get him back to prevent this this from
is missing him back from happening happening
again again

In scope Out of scope

FIGURE 2.2: In Harrys case, we define the project as identifying why he is missing, identifying how to get
him back, and getting him back.

preventing his disappearance from reoccurring in the future, but it may be premature to do
so at this time, when such concerns are outside the scope of the project.
Explicitly including an out-of-scope section helps remove ambiguities:Each of us ap-
proaches a project with our own preconceptions and writing down what the project is and
is not can be helpful in building shared understanding. This is critical:A2011 report by the
National Research Council found that many poorly performing teams do not validate that
all members agree on the objectives and how to reach them.22
The next row in the what card is about people. Decision makers are people who can formally
authorize, steer, or kill your project. Typically these are our bosses and/or clients. Other key
stakeholders are people who do not have formal authority but have influence on the project or
are impacted by it. Managing all key stakeholders appropriatelysuch as involving them in the
projectmay have a significant impact on the projects success. For example, if one is a hospi-
tal administrator whose project is to change the behavior of surgical staff to promote greater
cleanliness in operating rooms, surgical staff would be key stakeholders. Indeed, engaging them
in the effort from the beginning, so that they influence the project and feel ownership over the
outcomes, may significantly improve the chances of success.23 In Harrys case, the decision-
makers are John and his wife and there are no other key stakeholders (see Figure2.3).
Next is the timetable, showing the main phases in the process and the time we plan to
devote to each. To simplify thinking through the project, the table is prepopulated with four
steps (what, why, how, do), but you may decide to articulate your project around other milestones.
The next row lists the resources that you are ready to commit to the project. These can
be money, people, equipment, andsoon.
The final row lists possible problems, along with actions that you can take to mitigate
them. The idea is to help you think from the very beginning about possible obstacles that
could complicate your project and how you can proactively avoid them or reduce their
impact. In Harrys case, for example, calling the housekeeper to confront her and find out
if she is holding Harry hostage could be a way to make progress quickly, but it could also
easily backfire:If she did not take him and is as unstable as John says she is, we might end

22. (National Research Council, 2011)[p.177].

23. See (Ramanujam & Rousseau, 2006)[p.823] for a discussion on the positive impact of involving people and pushing
decisions down an organizations hierarchy.

26 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 27

Project name: Find Harry the dog

Specific goals: 1. Understand why Harry is missing (why) Out of scope: Preventing him from going missing
(what you are 2. Identify best way to get him back (how) (what you are again in the future (both the how and
going to do) 3. Get him back (do) not going to do) the implementation)

Decision John and his wife Other key N/A

maker(s): stakeholders:

Timetable: Actions Needed Cumulative

time time
1. Frame the problem (define the what ) 2h 2h
2. Diagnose the problem (find the why)
Define the diagnostic key question and identify possible causes 4h 6h
Collect the diagnostic evidence, analyze, and draw conclusions 6h 12h
3. Identify solutions (find the how)
Define the solution key question and identify potential solutions 6h 18h
Collect evidence, analyze, and decide which solution(s) to implement 6h 24h
4. Implement the chosen solution(s) (do) 48h 72h
Resources: Money: Spend up to $150 for the why, $150 for the how, $300 for the do
People: Up to three people dedicated full time

Possible Speaking with housekeeper can backfire Mitigation Refrain from speaking with the
problems: actions: housekeeper until absolutely
necessary

FIGURE2.3:Harrys what card summarizes key information for the project.

up having to divert significant resources to manage her. So we choose to avoid this liability
altogether by refraining from speaking with her untillater.
Framing the problem can be challenging and may require several iterations. Consider
using the what card to guide your conversations with your projects decision maker(s) and
other key stakeholders so as to converge toward a shared understanding of the project.
One final word about scope creep:Although the gradual expansion of a project outside
of its original objectives is not desirable in many instances, in some situations, as your proj-
ect progresses, you may discover evidence that warrants changing the scope. As long as any
changes in scope are the result of conscious decisions taken while considering deadlines
and resource restrictions, they are perfectly acceptable. To ensure that a shared understand-
ing of the project remains, however, these changes should be reflected in the whatcard.

2. FRAMING THEDIAGNOSTIC
There was once a village along a river. The people who lived there were very kind. These
residents, according to parable, began noticing increasing numbers of drowning people
caught in the rivers swift current. And so they went to work devising ever more elaborate
technologies to resuscitate them. So preoccupied were these heroic villagers with rescue and
treatment that they never thought to look upstream to see who was pushing the victimsin.24

24. (Steingraber,2010).

Frame the Problem 27

28

?
?
? ? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
? ?
?
Key
question

FIGURE2.4:The key question encompasses all the other relevantones.

When facing a problem, it is tempting to jump straight into How can Ifix it? mode
because doing so forces us to think about potential solutions right from the start. This gives
the appearance of efficiency. As ecologist Sandra Steingrabers story illustrates, however, if
you start thinking about how you can solve a problem without having understood its root
cause(s), you may misdirect a great deal of effort or solve the wrong problem altogether.
First, you must go upstream. This section explains how to do so by framing the diagnostic
analysis and capturing the result in a whycard.

2.1. SELECT A GOOD KEY QUEST I ON

Central to problem framing is identifying the key question you want to answer; that is, the
one question from which all the other relevant ones originate (see Figure 2.4).25 You also
need to frame the key question by placing it in its environment and summarizing this infor-
mation in a diagnostic definition card, or whycard.
As we touched on in Chapter1, diagnosing the problem requires alternating between
divergent and convergent thinking. Here, divergent thinking helps us identify potential can-
didates for the key question; it is creative thinking or idea generation. Once we have sev-
eral candidates to compare, we apply convergent thinkingcritical thinkingto compare
them and decide which touse.
Key questions have four characteristics:type, topic, scope, and phrasing. We will use
these characteristics to improve our set of candidate key questions and help us choose the
one that we should retain.

2.1.1. CHOOSE THERIGHT TYPE OFKEY QUESTION

Earlier in this chapter, we started our four-step approach by identifying our overall objec-
tive for the effort:what we wanted to achieve. That is the description phase (see Figure2.5).
Next is the diagnosis. A typical diagnosis question asks why we are facing this prob-
lem (e.g., Why is Harry is missing? or Why is Harry not at my friends house?). Afrequent

25. Concentrating on a central question is standard in the approach of some management consultants; see (Davis
etal.,2007).

28 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 29

1. Frame the 2. Diagnose the 3. Find potential 4. Implement

problem problem solutions solution

Description Diagnosis Prescription

phase phase phase Time

WHAT WHY HOW DO

problem should am I facing can I solve it?
I solve? this problem?

or different ways) can I implement the

solve this problem solution(s) and
and which one(s) monitor
or

or
a similar question
FIGURE2.5:The key question changes as we progress toward resolving the problem.

alternative diagnosis question is why we have not achieved our overall objective yet (e.g.,
Why have Inot found Harryyet?).
After the diagnosis comes the prescription: Howunderstood as, in what various
wayscan we solve our problem (e.g., How can Iget Harry back?)?
So, while a problem may have three major key questions (a what, a why, and a how), at
any moment in time you are only facing one ofthose.
Only ask what, why, or how. Other question roots (i.e., where, when, who) may be useful
as part of the analysis, and we will use these when we test hypotheses in Chapters4 and 6.In
my experience, however, these usually are not good roots for key questions because they can
lead to confusion. Rather, using a why for the diagnosis phase and a how for the prescription
phase helps structure the resolution. This is critical because, at this stage, our primary goal
is to identify the correct problem, rather than one of its symptoms, or a less critical problem,
and structure has been shown to improve the effectiveness of problem formulation.26
Only ask how if you know why. In our problem-solving approach, once you have identi-
fied what you want to do with your project, you only need to consider two kinds of key ques-
tions:why and how. Why analyses are diagnostics:they help uncover the root cause(s) of the
problem. How analyses are prescriptions:they help find alternative ways to solve a problem.
Going back to Steingrabers example, fixing the symptoms (rescuing people) instead of
fixing the actual cause of the problem is suboptimal. If, instead of asking, How can we save
these people? the villagers had first asked, Why are these people in the river? they might
have identified a better solution. Of course, in practical situations, one may have to attend
to urgent matters first, and we are not suggesting that the villagers should let people drown
in the river as they conduct their diagnosis. Rather, we are saying that, resources permitting,
they should not bypass the diagnosis altogether.

26. (Bardwell,1991).

Frame the Problem 29

30

Understanding your overall objective and the root cause(s) of your problem sets
the foundation for a robust resolution. So, time permitting, it is usually wise to start by
askingwhy.

2.1.2. ASK ABOUT THERIGHTTOPIC

Once you have identified which type of question to ask, your next consideration is to make
it address the right topic. This is not as obvious as it sounds.
As an illustration, consider Stockholms struggle with traffic congestion over the 57
bridges that connect the 14 islands on which the city is built. Framing the problem on the
topic of supply (by asking, for instance, How can we increase the supply of roads?) would
probably have resulted in building another bridge, a standard and expected engineering so-
lution. Instead, when the problem arose in the early 2000s, the city framed the problem on
a larger topicthat of capacity. Congestion occurs when the capacity of a system is insuffi-
cient, that is, when the supply cannot accommodate the demand. So, although it is perfectly
acceptable to aim at increasing the supply, maybe decreasing the demand is also worth pur-
suing. On this basis, Stockholm implemented a tax and drive system with transponders
installed in the users cars that charged a larger amount at rush hour. Within four weeks, the
system removed 100,000 vehicles at rush hours.27 An initial trial system was put in place
in 2006, which reduced travel times sufficiently for the general public to notice. This, in
turn, is credited for a landslide reversal of public opinion toward supporting the measure.28
Addressing the right topic in this case yielded a faster solution at a fraction of the cost of
building a new bridge. It also came with added benefits, including reduced pollution.29
One important takeaway from this example is that we should strive to keep an open
mind when framing our problems. If I am an engineer, for example, I should not think that
a problem I am confronted with necessarily calls for an engineering solution. At times, a
nonengineering solution might be more desirable.
By the way, this capacity problema mismatch between supply and demandis a re-
current theme in the problems that Isee and presents itself in various guises, such as ensur-
ing that a team can accommodate the workload assigned to it (the obvious solutionhiring
additional personnelis not necessarily the best answer) or increasing a business units
profitability. Here is another example.
Imagine that your company sells laptops and your manager asks you to think of ways
to increase sales. You might brainstorm with a few colleagues and identify two general
ways:make the whole market biggerby convincing people who are not currently buying
laptops to buy yoursor steal customers from your competitors (see Figure2.6).
But there are other ways to increase sales; for one, you may sell more to your current
customers. You also may increase the revenue of each sale. And, although revenue is good,
profitsrevenues minus expensesmay be even better. In fact, what you may ultimately

27. (Grasso & Martinelli,2010).

28. (Eliasson, Hultkrantz, Nerhagen, & Rosqvist,2009).
29. (Eliasson,2009).

30 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 31

Sell to people
who do not
currently buy this
HOW can we type of product
increase our sales?
Steal customers
from our
competition

FIGURE2.6: Astraightforward answer to insufficient sales is to increase the overall market size or
steal customers from our competition.

be after is sustainable return on investment (ROI). If you make the topic of your key ques-
tion increasing your return on investment, your universe of possibilities grows drastically
(see Figure 2.7). Afocus on increasing ROI is not necessarily better than a focus on sales;
what matters is that you identify the right topic for your specific situation.

Sell to people who

do not currently buy
Increase the this type of products
number of Sell to new
units sold customers
Increase Steal customers
revenues from our competition

Increase the
revenue on
each unit

Increase Decrease the

our quantity of raw
profitability Decrease raw materials
materials costs
Get cheaper raw
Decrease materials
HOW can we variable
increase our Decrease costs Decrease
return costs assembly,
on investment? shipping, and
distribution
costs

Decrease
fixed costs

Reduce
long-term
investments
Reduce
our
investment
Reduce
short-term
investments

FIGURE2.7: Choosing the right topic is essential because it dictates the size of the solution space for
the problem.

Frame the Problem 31

32

Question your constraints/frames. Considering new possibilities for the topic of your
key question takes time and effort. It is messy, inefficient, and unpredictable. Yet these are
requirements of innovative thinking30 and as the Stockholm example suggested, it may lead
to better solutions. In fact, there is widespread agreement that reframing is beneficial.31
Of course, we are sometimes pressed by time or other constraints to restrict our atten-
tion to a specific topic. But in other situations, in my experience, questioning whether the
initial topic of our key question is the correct one is a wise investment.

2.1.3. WITHIN THETOPIC, SELECT THERIGHTSCOPE

Related to choosing the right topic is selecting the right scope within that topic:being nei-
ther too broad nor too narrow.
Consider being asked, How do we solve the airports parking lot problem? Although
the question may address the right topic if the problem is related to the parking lot, it is not
sufficiently precise. What is wrong with the parking lot? Is it congested? Unsafe? Dirty?
Noisy? Ugly? Flooded? Toofar?
Do not make your scope too narrow. If the key question is too broad, as in the airport
parking lot example above, you may struggle to stay in touch with your problem because
you will explore aspects that are only remotely connected to the central issue. But making
your key question too narrow is also limiting. This can happen when we orient the question
in the wrong direction or when we base it on an incorrect hypothesis. In such cases, you will
overlook some ways of solving your problem or you might miss the entire point. Broadening
your perspective may be beneficial. For example, Ancel Keys developed the Mediterranean
diet after noticing that rates of cardiovascular diseases vary greatly depending on nations,
which was noticeable only after Keys expanded his question to the international realm.32
One common instance of making the key question too narrow is when we guide the
resolution of our problem in the question. Consider the key question:How can we better
manage our inventory to ensure that we have enough promotional materials? Managing
the inventory may or may not be the reason why we do not have enough promotional ma-
terials; until we have established that poor management is a significant root cause of our
problem, we should not focus on it. Similarly, with I do not have enough visibility; how
do Ipersuade Marketing to dedicate one full-time employee to promoting my products?
Again, getting one FTE might not be the desirable solution to the situation. In fact, it might
not even be enough! And yet we are framing our possibilities with this constraint. Be care-
ful what you wish for, lest it come true comes to mindhere.
In these examples, asking ourselves, How do we ensure that we have enough promo-
tional materials? and How do we increase our visibility? might be sufficient. Whether the
problem is indeed the management of the inventory or the lack of a dedicated FTE will be
revealed in our analysis.

30. (Ness, 2012a) [p.11].

31. (Bardwell, 1991), (Hammond etal., 2002)[p.16,20], (Dougherty & Heller,1994).
32. (Ness, 2012b). On scope, see also (Heuer & Pherson, 2011)[pp.4951].

32 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 33

2.1.4. USE ANAPPROPRIATE PHRASING

Using an appropriate phrasing for your key question means vetting every single word and,
possibly, making the key question self-reliant.
Validate every word. In evidence-based medicine, clarity in question formulation is
valuable because it helps concentrate limited resources where they are most needed and
reduces communication errors.33 Just as a minute change in the heading of an airliner right
after takeoff significantly affects its position 5,000 miles later, the slightest of variations in
your key question will have significant consequences on your project. That is, because a key
question is the foundation of your entire problem-solving effort, each word counts.
For an illustration of how critical this is, recall Thibodeau and Boroditskys experiment
on crime resolution that we discussed earlier. They found that even a minute difference
changing one word in the narrative Crime is a virus/beast ravaging the city of Addison
resulted in people offering different solutions.34
An implication is that you have to use precise vocabulary, not because of pedantry but
because imprecision in communication may be symptomatic of deficiencies in the under-
lying logic. Imagine talking to your surgeon before an intervention and hearing him make
such an imprecise description of what he is going to do that it bothers even you, a nonspe-
cialist. Surely this would push you to question whether he is trustworthy. An imprecise key
question may just have the same effect.
Consider making your key question self-reliant. Aside from precision, you may con-
sider making the key question self-reliant so that it is immediately understandable to some-
one not familiar with the problem. In this case, our key question, Why is Harry missing?
may become, Why is my friends dog, Harry, missing? Why is my friends dog, Harry,
missing after he was left alone at home for four hours? or something else. As is common
with ill-defined problems, there is usually more than one acceptable answer.
To help formulate a good key question, you may want to start by generating five or more
candidates. Then use the four filters above (type, topic, scope, and phrasing) to compare
them and understand the implications of using one versus another. You may then want to
combine them, stealing elements from some to build an optimal one. Be sure to seek feed-
back from others to challenge your preconceptions.

2.1.5. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?

The first row of Table 2.2 shows several ideas for a diagnostic key question in Harrys case.
These initial candidates do not have to be perfect. Instead, generate many candidates, ap-
proaching the problem from different perspectives. To help you do so, you may want to ask
others to pitch in theirideas.
Next, run each candidate through the four filters. The template of Table 2.2 allows you
to capture the surviving ideas after each filter as well as the thought process that led you to

33. (Straus, Glasziou, Richardson, & Haynes, 2011)[p.21].

34. (Thibodeau & Boroditsky,2011).

Frame the Problem 33

34

TABLE2.2:
In Harrys Case, Using theFilters Helps Us Identify a Key Question
and Documents Our Thinking Process

Objective (what do Iwant to achieve?):Find Harry the dog

Initial, unfiltered candidates for the key question:

Why is Harry not at my friendshouse?
How can Iget Harryback?
Why is Harry missing?
Why cant we findHarry?
Why was Harry able to leave my friends house?

Filter Reasoning Filtered candidates for key

question
Type filter: Because we do not know yet why Harry is Why is Harry not at my
missing, it is premature to think of ways to get friendshouse?
him back. How can I get Harry back?
Why is Harry missing?
Why cant we findHarry?
Why was Harry able to leave my
friends house?
Topic filter: I am primarily interested in Harry being Why is Harry not at my
missing, as opposed to how he left the house. friendshouse?
Why is Harry missing?
Why cant we find Harry?
Why was Harry able to leave my
friends house?
Scope filter: There are reasons why we cannot find Harry Why is Harry not at my
besides his disappearances (e.g., we are friendshouse?
incompetent), but we decide that they are not Why is Harry missing?
worth pursuing at this time. Why cannot we find Harry?

Phrasing The two remaining formulations seem Why is Harry not at my friends
filter: equivalent, so we go with the more concise. house?
Further, we think that specifying that Harry is Why is Harry [the dog]
a dog will help enlist others efficiently. missing?

each updated candidate pool. This may help you clarify your thinking and it can be useful
later in the process if you need to explain your approach.
To compare candidates, think of their implicationstheir so what? Looking at the prob-
lem from one particular perspective may make some of its characteristics more apparent.
For instance, concentrating on how Harry left the house (Why was Harry able to leave
my friends house?) versus where he is now (Why is Harry not at my friends house?)
can help you map out in more precision the events that resulted in his disappearance. If
you decide, however, that what really matters is where he is now, such an approach may not
result in the best question.
Note that, as you compare options, it is perfectly acceptable to steal elements from some
options in order to improve others.
Once you are confident that you have found an appropriate type, topic, and scope, you
should improve the form of your question. Does your question ask precisely what it ought

34 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 35

to ask? Could it say the same thing with fewer words? Is it sufficiently self-reliant? Once this
is done, you are ready to integrate the question into an introductory flow.

2.2. USE ANINTRODUCTORYFLOW

The key question is a central element in framing your diagnostic, but it is only one of several
components. It fits into an introductory flow consisting of a situation and a complication,
and it is completed by a description of the context of the problem. The following sections
describe these elements.

2.2.1. DEFINING YOUR UNIVERSE WITHTHE SITUATION

One way to look at introductions is to think about them as being stories with three compo-
nents:a situation, a complication, and a key question.35 As such, an introduction is analo-
gous in many ways to a scene of exposition in theatrical pieces and movies where the audi-
ence learns the information necessary for them to understand the storypast events, key
people and relationships, circumstances, and so forth.36
The situation sets the stage by presenting the part of the universe in which you are in-
terested; it aims at generating a yes, Iknow/understand all this, so why are you telling it to
me? reaction in your audience. It does so by presenting only the information that is neces-
sary, sufficient, positive, and uncontroversial.
Include only the necessary and sufficient information. Distractions reduce our
working memoryour ability to acquire and retain information in short-term memory
so unnecessary complexity hinders problem solving.37 As such, it is advisable to include in
the situation only the information that is necessary to understand the setting and to leave
out peripheral elements.
This less is more approach can be difficult because it is tempting to include lots of informa-
tion and let our audience decide what is really important. Many presentations Ihave seen start
with an overcrowded background slide in which the writers thinking seems to be:I cannot
quite explain why Ithink this is important, but Ill put it anyway, and if they do not see value in it,
they can just ignore it. Or, I know this is not relevant, but this is usually how we talk about this
subject so Ill put it out there. The issue with these approaches is that recognizing the real prob-
lem out of a mass of information is a difficult task, one that usually requires careful thinking and
various iterations. Therefore, it is unreasonable to assume that our audience can do it on thego.
So it is you, the problem solver, who should do this thinking, including only the ele-
ments that you have identified as critical. It may be that your audience will disagree with
you, but you will have set the stage for a constructive debate that may take your analysis to
a higher level than you could have reached by yourself.
In practice, this means that you should be able to justify the presence of every word in
your introductory flow; in particular:

35. (Minto, 2009)[pp.3762].

36. See (Mackendrick, 2004)[pp.2226].
37. See, for instance (Shaw, 1958) and Chapter 3.

Frame the Problem 35

36

Do not include data simply because you think your readers might find it useful or
interesting. You must do this work yourself:Why is it important that your readers know
about this? To help you do this, do not accept, Thats interesting as a justification. If you
think something is interesting, understand and articulate why you thinkitis.
Do not include data by habit, simply because this is how someone else introduced the
problem to you. Do not just assume that they have thought critically through the informa-
tion that they have presented to you. Blindly following them may just be perpetuating a
mistake long after it should have been caught (think about the monkeys).
Do not include events in chronological order, or in the order you learned them,
simply for that reason. Usually, presenting data in chronological order is not the most effec-
tive way, as we will discuss further in Chapter7.
The important matter should stem out because of the absence of irrelevant information,
not because of repeated mentions. Remember, our approach is about simplifying the solution
process; in engineering terms, this means making the signal apparent by filtering out thenoise.
Include only positive information. At this stage, all is well in the universe; you are
merely defining which part of the universe you want to talk about. In screenwriter Robert
McKees words, A story begins with life being in balance, things are good, and daily activi-
ties occur more or less according to the way that our people of interest want them to occur.38
Include only uncontroversial/undisputed information. One of the proverbial stories
Iheard as a management consultant was that of a colleague who had worked on a project over
three months. He had conducted the analysis, assembled an attractive presentation, and con-
vened the executives of his client firm to present them with his report. As he showed them
his first slidethe situationthe chief financial officer (CFO) interrupted:Actually, this is
not what is happening. Rather what is happening is In the best-case scenario, the CFO
was wrong and all that was lost was some momentum in the presentation. But the alterna-
tive is much gloomier:If the consultants understanding of the situation was wrong, then the
entire basic premise of his work is incorrect! Including only uncontroversial information
information that you have vetted with knowledgeable stakeholdershelps you validate that
you are building on a solid foundation and starting from a point of shared understanding and
agreement. As Cambridge mathematician Michael Thompson puts it, get your first equation
right because research is not like an undergraduate examination question where you might get
8/10 for a good try, despite that little slip at the beginning! You have to get 10/10 every time.39
Be concise. The situation portion of the introduction does not have to be long. In fact,
in my experience, good ones seldom are. Even my students who feel that their situation is
too complex to be presented in one paragraph eventually manage to do so. They also usually
find the end product to be more effective than their original blurb.40
In Harrys case, the situation could be as simple as explaining that my friend has a dog
that he sometimes leaves home alone (see Table 2.3, Alternative1).
Another approach is to be more inclusive, as the second alternative in Table 2.3 shows,
mentioning that the dog has not escaped for a while and that today was particular. Both

38. (McKee & Fryer,2003).

39. ( J. M.T. Thompson,2013).
40. See (Gershon & Page, 2001)for an example of how a short, memorable story can be more effective than a list of bullet points.

36 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 37

TABLE2.3:Two Alternatives
fora Situation Statement inHarrys CaseOne Focusing
onConciseness, theOther onPrecision

Situation
Alternative 1: Sometimes, my friend leaves his dog Harry alone at his house.
Alternative 2: Sometimes, my friend leaves his dog Harry alone at hishouse.
Harry used to escape but has not escaped recently.
This morning, my friend fired his housekeeper because of poor performance,
which she blamed on Harrys shedding. She was extremely upset and
threatening.

alternatives are concise and comply with the other prescriptions discussed above; there-
fore, both are acceptable. My preference is for the first because it is shorter, and, unlike the
second alternative, it does not put forth any particular explanation.

2.2.2. INTRODUCETHENEED FORCHANGE WITH

THE COMPLICATION
The complication upsets the original situation and thereby leads to the key question.41 This
is where the problem emerges. All was reasonably well in our part of the universe but, with
the complication, something isnot.
Finding a good complication can be challenging, so you may find it useful to write down
various possibilities and compare them, as we did with the key question. When you com-
pare them, you gain a better understanding:some of them might be part of others, for in-
stance, or they might be consequences of others.
In the end, you must have only one complication. It may have several components, but
they should all support the same central point. So work out how the various elements relate
to one another, select the correct complication, and be specific; for instance, feel free to
include numerical data to support your point. Refrain from solving the problem, however,
because this is not yet the time to do so. Table 2.4 shows a complication for Harryscase.

TABLE2.4:The Complication Builds onthe Situation toLead tothe Key Question

Situation: Sometimes, my friend leaves his dog Harry alone at his house.
Complication: Today, when my friend came home after being absent for
four hours, Harry was missing.
Diagnostic key question: Why is Harry the dog missing?

41. See (McKee, 1997) [p. 189]. In screenwriting, the complication is called the inciting event (McKee & Fryer, 2003),
(Burke, 2014) [p. 295].

Frame the Problem 37

38

TABLE2.5:The
Complication May Be Supported bySeveral Points (Bullets) butThese
Must Come Under a Unique Argument
Situation: PR, Inc. is a boutique graphic design company.
Traditionally, it has provided design services for movie posters,
brochures, and corporatelogos.
Last year, it started a new service:photographic portraits of
artists in their environment.
Complication: Over the last six months, PRs revenues have not grown as
rapidly as planned:
Its traditional services acquired seven new clients instead of
the ten planned.
Its portrait services acquired three new clients instead of the
five planned.
Diagnostic Key Question: Why have PRs revenues over the last six months not grown as
rapidly as planned?

Table 2.5 shows another example of a situationcomplicationkey-question sequence

in a management setting. Here, the complication (the revenue growth being slower than
planned) is supported by two points (the revenue growth is not as quick as planned in tra-
ditional services and in portrait services).
Upon reading the situation and complication group, there is only one logical third
step:the key question, which should be the conclusion of your introductory funnel. Figure 2.8
shows how the situationcomplicationkey-question sequence focuses attention on a spe-
cific problem in a specific part of the universe. Your job is to make this focusing as simple
and effective as possible. This usually can be achieved concisely not just in the situation but
in the entire introductory flow.42

2.2.3. FINE TUNE YOUR INTRODUCTORYFLOW

As you put together your situation, complication, and key question, you may find that they
do not fit perfectly together.
Use the rabbit rule and the holding h ands rule. Tim van Gelder at the University
of Melbourne, Charles Twardy at George Mason University, and their colleagues have
looked at how argument mapping can improve critical thinking. One of their tools is the
rabbit rule: To pull a rabbit out of a hat, there must be a rabbit in the hat to begin with.43
That is, every element of the key question must have appeared in the situation and/or the
complication.

42. For an illustration, see the minimalist manner in which La Fontaine sets up his fable Les deux coqs in two succinct verses:
Deux coqs vivaient en paix : une poule survint,/Et voil la guerre allume. (Two cocks in peace were living, when/A war was
kindled by a hen.) (de La Fontaine, 1882).
43. (Twardy, 2010), (Rider & Thomason, 2010)[p.115].

38 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 39

Parts of the Parts of the

universe universe
(a) (b) Situation

Potential Potential
Problems Problems
Parts of the Parts of the
universe universe
(c) Complication (d) Key question

Potential Potential
Problems Problems

FIGURE2.8:The introductory flow is a funnel:In two intermediary steps (the situation [b]and the
complication [c]) it takes the audience from all possible problems (a)to the key question(d).

Similarly, every meaningful term in any one part of the introductory flow (the situa-
tion, the complication, or the key question) must appear at least once in another part of the
flowthats the holding h ands rule.44 Both these rules help prevent dangling terms, that is,
information that is not needed in the flow.45
Consider the introductory flow for Harrys case in Figure 2.9(a).
We complied with the rabbit rule, so no new elements appear in the key question. We
did not entirely follow the holding hands rule, however, because some elements of the situ-
ation and the complication were left unused. To comply with both rules, the key question
requires some rewording, as Figure 2.9 (b) shows. Twardy notes that complying fully with
both rules can make arguments significantly wordier, so he recommends that one initially
practice full compliance before deciding if a shorter version is better.46 I have found that
approach useful with my students, and we will resort to using shortcuts in further sections.
Keep it simple. In the words of 17th-century French writer Nicolas That which
is well thought-out is expressed clearly, and the words to say it come easily. Einstein
agrees: If you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it well enough. So if
you cannot express your thoughts clearly, your thinking needs some work, and clarifying
your communication might be just what you need. Aim at making your introductory flow

44. (Twardy, 2010), (Rider & Thomason, 2010)[p.115].

45. (Austhink,2006).
46. (Twardy,2010).

Frame the Problem 39

40

(a) Realizing that we

Situation: My friend has a dogHarryand lives in a house.
do not comply fully
Sometimes, he leaves Harry alone at the house. with the holding
hands rule (HH)...
Complication: Today, when my friend came home after being
absent for 4 hours, Harry was missing.

Diagnostic key Why is Harry the dog missing?

question:
HH

(b)
Situation: Sometimes, my friend leaves his dog Harry alone at ... we edit the
his house. introductory flow

Complication: Today, my friend left Harry alone for 4 hours. When

he came home, Harry was missing.

Diagnostic key Why is my friends dog Harry missing from his

question:
house where he was left alone for 4 hours? HH

FIGURE 2.9: Ensure that the introductory flow complies with the rabbit and holding hands rules.

understandable by a novice when he or she reads it for the first time. This will help on two
counts. First, it will help avoid those cases where a lack of clarity results in people misun-
derstanding the issue altogether.47 And second, in my experience, the investment neces-
sary to clarify a problem statement is low in comparison with the value added by gaining
additional insight. Indeed, many of my students must reformulate the introductory flow
to their technical problems so that nonexperts in the class, including me, can understand
them. They are often reluctant to do so at first, but they usually realize and confess that
they originally did not understand their problems sufficiently well. By having to express
the problem in simple terms, they cannot just repeat what they had heard or read but,
instead, have to develop a deeper understanding. So, to help clarify your problem state-
ment, give it to a novice to read out loud. Observe whether she or he can go through it
and understand it the first time out. If a novice has to re-read a part of it, chances are it is
not as simple as it should be, so improvement is needed. (Consider asking the novice to
help you improve the statement.)
Ensure that the key question is the logical destination of the {situation + complica-
tion} sequence. Reading a good introductory flow, the key question can be such a natural
destination for the {situation + complication} sequence that it may seem almost superflu-
ous. But this apparent triviality is the result of targeted efforts and reaching it is indeed sig-
nificant progress. As one of my mathematics professors used to say, This problem is trivial,
the difficulty is to see that it is trivial.
The checklist in Figure 2.10 summarizes the rules we discussed for introductory flows.
Validate that your introductory flow complies with these rules before moving forward.

47. (MacDonald & Picard, 2009). See also ( J. M.T. Thompson,2013).

40 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 41

Has all the necessary information to

identify the part of the universe we are
interested in
Has a good
situation (S) Has only the necessary information
Has only information that is positive and
undisputed/uncontroversial

Has a good Has a unique problem in that part of the

complication universe (potentially illustrated by one
... has the right or several of its symptoms/
elements (C)
consequences)

Is of the right type (based on the right

root: why or how)

Has a good Is on an appropriate topic

A good key question Has an appropriate scope (neither too
introduction ... (KQ) broad nor too narrow)

Has an appropriate phrasing

(understandable without anything else)

The flow complies with the rabbit

rule (i.e., nothing new appears in
the KQ)

The flow complies with the

... and the holding-hands rule (i.e., if
elements work something appears in the S or C,
well together it is in the KQ, too)

No gaps, no overlaps
The flow is understandable by a
novice after one read Appropriate order
No jargon

FIGURE2.10: Agood introduction has the right elements and these work well together.

2.3. SUMMARIZE YOUR DIAGNOSTIC

FRAME INA WHYCARD
Mirroring how we captured the scope of our project in a what card, summarize the diagnos-
tic problem in a diagnostic definition card, or why card, as Figure 2.11 shows. You should
periodically refer back to the why card during your diagnosis to ensure that you are staying
on target or that, if the goal changes, it is the result of a conscious decision.
The top half of the card is the introductory flow:the situation, complication, and key
question. The bottom half summarizes the context of the problem, first listing decision
makers and key stakeholders. Then come the goals and logistics for your diagnosis:How
much time will you invest in that part of the project? How much of your resources will you
dedicate to it? What will be the deliverables or end products? The last section lists the vol-
untarily left-out answers, that is, actions we could take but decide not to take. For instance,
in Harrys case, it would be perfectly acceptable to doubt Johns statement that Harry is not
at home. But we also can choose to believe this statement without checking it, and we would

Frame the Problem 41

42

Situation: The information that is necessary and sufficient to specify which part of the
universe you are considering. Only the necessary information. This
information should be positive (i.e., there is no problem at this stage) and
undisputed (i.e., people reasonably familiar with the setting agree with it)

Complication: The one problem in that part of the universe; that is, the unique need for change
(potentially illustrated by one or several of its symptoms/consequences)

Diagnostic key The one diagnostic question that you want to answer. It
question: 1. Is phrased as why...?
2. Addresses an appropriate topic
3. Has an appropriate scope
4. Has an appropriate phrasing

Decision The person(s) who have the formal authority to direct your project/authorize
makers: your recommendation

Other The person(s) who do not have formal authority but who can influence the
stakeholders: project

Goals and Budget, deadlines, types of documents, quantitative objectives, etc.

logistics:

Voluntarily left- The actions under your control that you choose not to take
out answers
(things that we
could do but
decide not to):

FIGURE2.11:Awhy card captures the frame of the diagnostic problem.

then include a mention in the why card to that effect; for instance, Consider that John is
mistaken or lying when saying that Harry is not at the house (see Figure 2.12). In general,
as in the previous example, it is useful to phrase all these voluntarily left-out answers as ac-
tions you conceivably couldtake.
As you finalize your why card, remember three important guidelines.
Do not diagnose the problem yet. This is only the diagnostic definition card, not the
actual diagnosis. You will have your entire analysis to solve your problem, so refrain from put-
ting on the card what you think might be the cause of the problem. In CIDNI problem solving,
thinking before acting pays off.48 An analogy is to imagine driving to a new location without
having charted your path first (and without a GPS locator):You may be lucky and get on the
right road the first time, but chances are that looking at the map first (developing a good why
card), while delaying your departure, will ultimately result in time savings. Also, anyone who
has ever embarked on a slightly wrong road knows how difficult it is to make a U-turn and go
back to the previous intersection.49 Intellectually, it is just easier to keep going and find a reme-
dial trajectory, even when knowing full well that going back would be more efficient.
Remove distractions. Thinking is hard work and chances are you will look for excuses
to avoid it. So remove all the noise in your why card:use correct grammar, precise vocabu-
lary, and soforth.

48. (Smith,1988).
49. This is called the sunk-cost fallacy (Arkes & Ayton, 1999; Arkes & Blumer, 1985).

42 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 43

Situation: Sometimes, my friend John leaves his dog Harry alone at his house

Complication: Today, when John came home after being absent for 4 hours, Harry was missing

Diagnostic key Why is Harry the dog missing [from my friends house where he was left
question: unattended for 4 hours]?

Decision My friend and his wife

makers:

Other N/A
stakeholders:
Goals and Spend up to $150 on the diagnosis, design diagnostic analysis within 6
logistics: hours, conduct diagnostic analysis within 12 hours

Voluntarily left- Call the housekeeper to accuse her of holding Harry hostage without first
out answers making sure
(things that we Consider irrational explanations such as alien abduction
could do but Consider that John is mistaken or lying when saying that Harry isnt at the
decide not to): house

FIGURE2.12:Awhy card for Harryscase.

Do not get discouraged. Writing a good why card might look simple, but it is not. It is
hard and stressful, so do not panic if you encounter trouble, that is normal. Just keep at it,
giving it your best for some time. Because the why card defines what you will do for the next
few days or weeks, resist settling for mediocrity.
Once all team members agree that the why card is good, run through the introduction
checklist one last time (see Figure 2.10). Is something bothering you? Even if you cannot
yet identify what it is, this is a good indicator that you should probe further.
But if you are happy with your why card, and if you have captured it electronically, copy
your key question and paste it onto a white page, because you are about to grow your diag-
nostic issue map fromit.

3. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?
Figure 2.12 shows a why card for Harry. As shown, we have opted for a shorter version of
the key question.
Having framed our problemand captured it in a what cardand identified our diag-
nostic key question and captured it and other relevant information in a why card, we can
now proceed to uncovering the root causes of the problem. Chapter3 explains how to lever-
age a graphical tool, issue maps, to look for potential root causes and organize them so as to
consider all of them exactlyonce.

Frame the Problem 43

44

NOTES
Key characteristics of projects. Project manager Davidson Frame notes that projects
are directed to achieve specific results; are finite in time with a beginning and an end; re-
quire coordinating interrelated activities; and are all unique to some degree.50
Introductions in storytelling. Director Alexander Mackendricks analysis of classic
stories provides a parallel to the situationcomplicationkey question approach to intro-
ductions. The situation includes the place and time period, the protagonist, and the action
of the protagonist (once upon a time, there lived a, who, respectively). The
complication is the obstacle (but). Then comes the key question, the point of attack
when the action starts.51
Wicked problems. Another name for ill-defined problems is wicked.52 See Conklin
(2005) for further description and ideas to solvethose.
Even smart monkeys get conditioned. In the mid-1990s, Robert Cousins, a physicist
at the University of California, Los Angeles, asked why every physicist was not a Bayesian
(see Chapter4). His conclusion:The most superficial answer [] is that people have
generally been taught classical methods rather than Bayesian methods.53 Decision theorists
von Winterfeldt and Edwards agree.54 (However, Stanford statistician Efron looked at the
question 10years earlier and had a different viewpoint.55)
The importance of framing. For instance, see Tversky and Kahneman (1981) for how
framing influences decisions and Posners BirdandTrains problem discussed in Bassok
and Novick (2012, p.415) for how clever framing can significantly simplify a problem.
System 1 versus System 2 thinking. Barbara Spellmans introduction (National
Research Council, 2011, pp. 123125) is easily readable and Kahnemans Nobel lecture
(Kahneman, 2002)offers a more detailed summary. See also Moulton, Regehr, Lingard,
Merritt, and MacRae (2010) for factors that may influence transitioning from System 1 to
System2.
Business as usual. The legal system of some countries, including the United States and
England, is based on stare decisis:the expectation that a court will decide issues in accor-
dance with how they have been decided in the past.56
Linearity of the problem-solving process. The resolution process may be thought of
as roughly linear, except for instances where new evidence warrants a revision of previous
conclusions.
Working memory. More on how it relates to problem solving in Chapter3.

50. (Frame, 2003)[pp.26].

51. (Mackendrick, 2004)[pp.7879].
52. (Rittel, 1972), (Bardwell,1991).
53. (Cousins,1995).
54. (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986)[pp.161162].
55. (Efron,1986).
56. (Schauer, 2009)[p.37].

44 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 45

CHAPTER3

IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
ROOTCAUSES

R emember Sandra Steingrabers villagers of Chapter2 who were so busy

saving drowning people that they never thought to ask why they were caught in the river in
the first place? Having framed our diagnosis, we need to uncover the problems root causes
or risk being in the same position as the villagers:working hard and achieving some success
but not achieving as much as wecould.
To uncover the problems root causes, we will use a diagnostic issue map:a graphical analy-
sis of our diagnosis question that we will build using a three-step approach. First, we will map
the problem space by identifying all the possible root causes that could explain our diagnosis
key question, classifying them, and developing a set of formal hypotheses. Second, we will
prioritize how we want to test these hypotheses, possibly by doing a preliminary assessment of
the relative probabilities of these hypotheses to focus first on the most probable oneswhat
physicians call establishing a differential diagnosis. Third, we will design the analysis plan for
each relevant hypothesis, conduct the analysis, and draw conclusions. Chapter4 explains how
to carry out these last two steps. For now, lets look at how to build issuemaps.

1. ISSUE MAPS:DIAGNOSTIC MAPS

AND SOLUTIONMAPS
An issue map is a graphical analysis of a problem; it starts with the key question on the
left and explores the problems structure by laying out its various dimensions vertically and
becoming more detailed horizontally (see Figure 3.1). Such structuring aims at enhancing
the clarity, thoroughness and coherence of the analysis.1 It also provides a reference point to
visualize how each piece fits in the overall picture of the problem.2

1. (Brownlow & Watson, 1987). This approach is an example of a divide and conquer approach; see (Schum,
1994)[pp.138139].
2. (Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, 2004)[p.91].
FIGURE3.1: An issue map starts with the key question on the left and explores all of its possible answers. Then, it lists a set of formal hypotheses. For each
hypothesis, it captures the analysis and the conclusion.
 47

The map then summarizes these possible answers in a set of formal hypotheses to be
tested before spelling out the analysis needed for the tests and capturing the evidence.
Finally, the map includes the conclusion for each hypothesis.
In that respect, issue maps share properties with a number of cartographic approaches
to analyze problems, such as fault trees,3 logic trees,4 decision trees,5 issue trees,6 value trees/value
hierarchies,7 objective hierarchies,8 probability trees,9 Ishikawa (or cause-and-effect or fishbone)
diagrams,10 whywhy and howhow diagrams,11 influence diagrams,12 issue diagrams,13 evidence
maps,14 mind maps,15 concept maps,16 dialogue maps,17 argument maps,18 Wigmore charts,19 and
Bayesian networks.20
Issue maps can help you be more complete in your logic by first making you think in a
divergent pattern and then making you converge onto the most important elements. That is,
you first broaden your perspective by consider various options instead of directly focusing on
one, which is necessary to minimize the impact of a number of interrelated issues including:

Fixation, that is, being unable to search away from a given direction;21
Premature closure, that is, reaching a conclusion without considering all alternatives;22
Anchoring, that is, considering options in the light of the first information received
either given in the problem or formed subjectively;23

3. (DubeRioux & Russo, 1988; Eisenfhr etal., 2010; Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtenstein, 1978; Lee, Grosh, Tillman, & Lie,
1985; J.Edward Russo & Kolzow, 1994; Vesely, Goldberg, Roberts, & Haasl, 1981; von Winterfeldt & Edwards,2007).
4. (Bommer & Scherbaum,2008).
5. (Eisenfhr etal., 2010; Kazancioglu, Platts, & Caldwell, 2005; Mingers, 1989; Quinlan, 1986, 1987), (von Winterfeldt &
Edwards, 1986)[pp.6389].
6. (Wojick,1975).
7. (Keeney, 1992), (Goodwin & Wright, 2009) [p. 35] (Brownlow & Watson, 1987; von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986).
8. (Eisenfhr etal., 2010), (Keeney,1992).
9. (Goodwin & Wright, 2009) [p. 103].
10. (Breyfogle III, 2003; Hackman & Wageman, 1995; Ishikawa,1982).
11. (Cavallucci, Lutz, & Kucharavy, 2002; Higgins,1994).
12. (Goodwin & Wright, 2009; Howard, 1989) (Eisenfhr et al., 2010) [pp. 3943], (Howard & Matheson, 2005).
13. (Ohmae,1982).
14. (Mitchell,2003).
15. (Buzan, 1976; Davies,2010).
16. (Brinkmann, 2003; Novak, 1990; Novak & Caas,2006).
17. (Conklin,2005).
18. (Gelder, 2005; Heuer & Pherson, 2011; Reed, Walton, & Macagno, 2007; Twardy, 2010; Van Gelder, 2001, 2003,2005).
19. (T. Anderson, Schum, & Twining, 2005)[pp.123144], (Schum, 1994)[pp.160169].
20. (Hepler, Dawid, & Leucari, 2007), (Fenton, Neil, & Lagnado, 2012), (Vlek, Prakken, Renooij, & Verheij,2013).
21. (Duncker & Lees, 1945; Jansson & Smith, 1991; Pretz, Naples, & Sternberg, 2003; Smith & Blankenship, 1991; Smith &
Ward, 2012; Smith, Ward, & Schumacher, 1993; van Steenburgh, Fleck, Beeman, & Kounios, 2012; Weisberg & Alba, 1981),
(Smith & Ward, 2012)[p.467], (Pretz etal., 2003)[p.19], (Linsey etal.,2010).
22. (Estrada, Isen, & Young, 1997; Keinan,1987).
23. (Elstein & Schwarz, 2002; John S Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 1998; Kahneman, 2011), (Hora, 2007)
[pp. 142143].

Identify Potential RootCauses 47

48

Overconfidence, both attitudinal overconfidence, such as, I know all Ineed to know,
and cognitive overconfidence, such as not knowing what you do not know;24and
Confirmation bias, that is, generating and interpreting evidence to favor ones own
beliefs,25 which is notoriously difficult to overcome.26

Also, by exposing a problems underlying structure, maps may help you acquire a better
representation of the problem, which is particularly useful for solving poorly understood
problems.27 This is especially relevant when diverse groups of people, each with their own
incomplete view of the problem, are brought together to solve a problem. Amap may help
them understand how the pieces fit together.28
Another attribute of maps is thatby making explicit the structure of your analysis for
each hypothesis, as argument maps dothey help improve your thinking.29
Finally, by grouping information in clusters30 and serving as a problems central informa-
tion repository where all items of evidence are linked to the relevant hypotheses,31 maps
may help improve working memoryones capacity to keep information in short-term

Diagnostic maps answer

1. ... consistently answer a why key question
a single type of question Solution maps answer a
how key question

2. ... progress from the

key question to the
Issue maps... conclusions

3. ... have mutually

exclusive and
collectively exhaustive
(MECE) branches

4. ... are insightful

FIGURE3.2: Issue maps obey four basic rules.

24. (Berner & Graber, 2008; Fischhoff, 1982; Klayman, Soll, Gonzlez-Vallejo, & Barlas, 1999; McKenzie, 1997; Taleb,
2007; Yates, Lee, & Shinotsuka, 1996), see also (Hora, 2007)[p.144].
25. (Chamberlin, 1965; Dunbar & Klahr, 2012a; Ness, 2012; Platt, 1964)(Ditto & Lopez, 1992; Dunbar & Klahr, 2012b;
Macpherson & Stanovich, 2007; Nickerson,1998).
26. (Dunbar & Klahr, 2012b; Elstein, 2009; Macpherson & Stanovich, 2007). This list is not exhaustive; see (Croskerry,
2002; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) for more on bias and heuristics shortfalls.
27. (Blessing & Ross, 1996; Buckingham Shum etal., 1997; Cox, Irby, & Bowen, 2006; Kulpa,1994).
28. (Brownlow & Watson,1987).
29. (Rider & Thomason, 2010; Twardy,2010).
30. (Bettman, Johnson, & Payne,1991).
31. (Larkin & Simon,1987).

48 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 49

memory and manipulate it despite distractions.32 This is valuable because limits in our
working memory constrain our ability to solve complex problems.33
In a complete analysis, one builds two issue maps:first, a diagnostic map to identify the
potential root causes of the problem, and, second, a solution map to identify potential solu-
tions. Both types obey the same four basic rules, shown in Figure 3.2. Lets look atthose.

2. MAPS CONSISTENTLY ANSWER

THEKEY QUESTION
The first rule of issue maps is that they consistently answer the key question. As we have seen
in the previous chapter, we only need to consider two types of key questions:diagnostic and
solution ones. So, if our key question is diagnostic, our entire map will answer why questions.
Ensuring that a map consistently addresses only one type of question sounds trivial,
but it is easy to lose ones focus when dealing with complex problems. To avoid confusion,
populate maps with complete hypothetical answers to the key question in the form of self-
contained affirmations rather than titles. Indeed, if an element is a title, the reader has to
guess how to interpret it, which can cause confusion.
To illustrate, consider Figure 3.3 (a). Breaking down, Why is our profitability so low? into
the titles revenues and costs is not sufficient, because it requires guesswork on the readers
part. What about revenues? Are they concentrated on too few clients, too low, too dependent
on economic cycles? In contrast, Figure 3.3 (b) shows how using complete ideas removes
ambiguities.

Using titles leaves

(a) Revenues ambiguities: the reader
Why is our
profitability so must guess what to do
low? with the revenues and
Costs costs.

Because we
(b) have low Using specific self-
Why is our contained affirmations
profitability so revenues
removes the
low? ambiguities.
Because we
have high costs

FIGURE3.3:The elements of an issue map are complete hypothetical answers to the key questionin the
form of self-contained affirmationsto leave no ambiguities.

32. (Baddeley, 2003; Green & Dunbar,2012).

33. (Baddeley, 1992; Dufresne, Gerace, Hardiman, & Mestre, 1992; Dunbar & Klahr, 2012b; Halford, Baker, McCredden, &
Bain, 2005; Miller, 1956), (Brownlow & Watson, 1987), (Olson, 1996)[p.10]. See also (Simon, 1996)[pp.6667].

Identify Potential RootCauses 49

50

It might seem obvious that, when talking about increasing profitability, we are talking
about increasing revenues and decreasing costs, but, in the context of complex problems,
perceived obviousness is dangerous for at least three reasons:

First, because what is obvious to you might not be so to someoneelse;

Second, because what is obvious today might not be so in the future as you uncover
new evidence in your analysis and your thinking evolves;and
Third, because accepting things as obvious undermines creativity. At times,
innovative thinking requires that we unlearn obsolete mental models. That is, we
replace old logic with something radically new.34 If, however, you implicitly expect
yourself and the project team to question assumptions in some instances and to
understand obvious elements in othersand to know when to do one or the
otheryou are undermining this creative process.

In mathematician J. E. Littlewoods words, two trivialities omitted can add up to an

impasse. Applied mathematician Michael McIntyre notes that masters of writing know how
much omission they can get away with but notes that, for the rest of us, it is wiser to play it
safe.35 The idea then is to make things unambiguous so that, if anything appears ambiguous,
it stands out and can be questioned.
In addition, formulating the elements of your map as ideas requires constructing phrases
with action verbs. Making those actions parallel can help sharpen your thinking by eliminat-
ing potential gaps, as we will discuss more extensively in Chapter5.
So, the first rule of a diagnostic map is to consistently answer a why key question. Next,
lets look at how it progresses.

3. MAPS PROGRESS FROMTHE KEY

QUESTION TOTHE CONCLUSIONS
Going back to Figure 3.2, the second rule of issue maps is to progress from the key question
to your conclusions. This starts with exposing the structure of the question by identifying
its various dimensions. The map begins with the key question and breaks it down into its
parts. Then it breaks these parts into smaller parts, revealing the details of the problem as
the map progresses to the right (see Figure3.4).
Starting with a why question, a diagnosis map displays hypotheses: Harry is missing
because he is stuck somewhere or because he is roaming freely. These can be further re-
fined into sub-cases:he may be stuck as the result of someone keeping him or because he,
Figures3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.10, 3.29, got stuck. If someone is keeping him, it may be to prevent
us from getting him back, to enable us to get him back, or neither. Other elements in the
map can be broken down similarly. The idea is to explore the problem space by uncovering

34. (Assink, 2006; Baker & Sinkula,2002).

35. (McIntyre,1997).

50 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 51

Because the person who is

keeping him does so to
prevent us from getting him
back

Because someone is Because the person who is

keeping him does so to
keeping him from
enable us to get him back
Because he is stuck leaving where he is
somewhere Because the person who is
keeping him does so to
neither enable us to nor
prevent us from getting him
WHY is Harry the back

dog missing? Because he, on his

own, got stuck
Because he is roaming in a
street
Because he is roaming Because he is roaming in a
Because he is roaming in a public place park

freely Because he is roaming in

another public place

Because he is roaming
in a private place

Key question Sub-issues Sub-sub-issues Sub-sub-sub issues

FIGURE3.4: Issue maps break the key question into increasingly detailed parts, thereby revealing the
structure of the question.

all the possible root causes of the key question and creating a framework where they can be
systematically and thoroughly analyzed.36
First, make explicit the structure of your key question. Breaking down elements
continues until the description of each potential cause is sufficiently explicit. This will prob-
ably result in a map with many elements. For instance, Figure 3.5 shows how, for even a
rather simple problem, the map expands extensively. Once you have achieved that level of
sufficient explicitness (the next section discusses how to recognize when that happens),
stop developing your map and switch to convergent thinking to develop a set of hypotheses.
Second, lay out your hypothesis set. When the structure is sufficiently explicit, as-
sociate a hypothesis with each element or group of elements in your map. You can associate
a hypothesis with a terminal element, (i.e., one without any child, that is, without any ele-
ments to its right), with an internal element, or with a combination, as Figure 3.6shows.
Maps commonly contain dozens of terminal elements. Although one could analyze each
independently, it is usually not desirable to do so. Instead, organize elements in judicious
groups and assign a formal hypothesis to each group (more on this in Chapter5).
Technically, all the elements of the map to the right of the key question are hypotheses.
But what we mean by a set of formal hypotheses is a group of two to ten precise summary
statements, each of which is testable and affirms: This part of the map is a significant cause
of the key question.
Formal hypotheses are useful to improve our thinking because they help overcome
memory limitations and help narrow the size of the problem space.37

36. This process corresponds to Schums mutation of hypotheses (Schum, 1994)[pp.192194].

37. ( Joseph & Patel,1990).

Identify Potential RootCauses 51

 52
Because the housekeeper is keeping him to
prevent us from getting him back.
Because the person who is
keeping him does so to Because they like
prevent us from getting him Because someone else is him very much
back keeping him to prevent us
from getting him back. Because they
do not like him/us

Because a neighbor is keeping him to enable us

to get him back

Because the police are keeping him to enable us

to get him back
Because someone is Because an animal shelter is keeping him to
Because he is keeping him from leaving Because the person who is enable us to get him back
stuck where he is keeping him does so to
enable us to get him back Because a pet association is keeping him to
somewhere enable us to get him back

Because a vet office is keeping him to enable us

to get him back

WHY is Harry Because someone else is keeping him to enable

the dog us to get him back

missing? Because the person who is Because a kid has found Harry and wants to
keeping him does so to keep him
neither enable us to nor
prevent us from getting him Because someone else has found Harry and
back wants to keep him

Because he, on his own,

got stuck
Because he is roaming in a
street

Because he is roaming in a
park
Because he is roaming
Because he is in a public place Because he is roaming in the nearby
roaming freely school
Because he is roaming in
another public place
Because he is roaming in another public
place

Because he is roaming in a
private place

FIGURE3.5: Keep drilling into the problem by identifying new layers of structure.
 53
FIGURE3.6: Associate each element in the map to a formal hypothesis.
54

... she was able to do it

and

Hypothesis 1: Harry is ... she was willing to do

missing because the it (i.e., she had a
Reason: motive)
housekeeper is holding because...
him hostage
and

... our body of evidence

does not contradict this
hypothesis

... the hostage taker

was able to do it

and
Hypothesis 2: Harry is
missing because someone ... the hostage taker was
other than the Reason: willing to do it (i.e., s/he
housekeeper is holding because... had a motive)
him hostage
and

... our body of evidence

does not contradict this
hypothesis

FIGURE3.7: For each hypothesis, identify the required analysis.

It is important that every element in the map be associated with exactly one hypothesis
either directly or through its children. That way, your set of hypotheses covers your entire
problem:This is important because, if you have correctly identified all the possible answers
to your key question, you now know that the solution is in one (or more) of these hypotheses.
Third, explain how you will test each hypothesis. The next step is to identify the
analysis that you need to conduct to test each hypothesis (see Figure3.7).
To illustrate, lets go to our case study. Harry is missing, and, as Figure 3.7 shows, we
suspect that the housekeeper may be keeping him hostage. How should we test this? We
propose to identify a set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Specifically, Was she able
to do it? Was she willing to do it (i.e., has she got a motive?)? and Is our body of evidence
consistent with this hypothesis? An affirmative answer to all three questions would signifi-
cantly raise the probability that this hypothesis is correct. Similarly, if there is strong evi-
dence against any of these conditions, there is a high probability that she did notdoit.
Someone might disagree with this analysis: perhaps other conditions besides these
three should be included. Or perhaps we should not think in terms of necessary and suf-
ficient conditions; indeed, many case law issues, for instance, are not decided by necessary
and sufficient conditions.38 For instance, a detective might look for means (the ability to
commit the crime), motive (the reason to commit the crime), and opportunity (the chance

38. (Hafner,1987).

54 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 55

Accepted as

Accepted as self

Accepted as

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted as

Accepted as

Accepted as

Accepted as

FIGURE3.8: Issue maps are also useful to capture the analysis and synthesis for each hypothesis.

to commit the crime). These are worthy objections, and the project team should have these
conversations and decide whether this is the right approach. The point is, however, that by
explicitly showing the proposed analysis, the map helps provoke these conversations and
enrichthem.
Fourth, prioritize the analysis and conduct it. Our approach so far has been to in-
clude all possible answers to the key question, irrespective of their likelihood. Having laid
out this analysis plan, you should now decide which hypotheses to test first. While you
prioritize, call upon your intuition to decide with which hypothesis to start your analysis. As
you conduct it, capture both your logic and the evidence in the map. Figure 3.8 shows how a
map is useful to record the information that will help you decide whether to accept or reject

Identify Potential RootCauses 55

 56
... she was able Decision:
to do it Reason: Synthesis: Accepting
because... all co-premises, we
accept the reason

and Decision: Reject

Hypothesis 1: Harry is Synthesis: For this hypothesis to
missing because the ... she was willing Decision: hold, Harry would have had first
housekeeper is holding him to do it (i.e., she Reason: Synthesis: Accepting to escape and then the housekeeper
hostage had a motive) all co-premises, we would have had to see him in the
because...
accept the reason street, recognize him, pick him up
and take him hostage. That seems
Reason: too unlikely, therefore we discard it
because... and at this time
... our body of
evidence does Decision:
not contradict Objection: Synthesis: Accepting
this hypothesis but... the objection, we
reject the reason

FIGURE3.9:The last step in an issue map is to conclude on each hypothesis.

 57

FIGURE3.10: Maps use both dimensions to map out completely the key question.

each hypothesis.39 That is, your diagnostic map becomes the road map of your analysis. It
will also be a central repository where, at a glance, you can view what you have done and
what is missing. As such, your map will evolve during your analysis:far from sticking rigidly
to your original understanding of the problem, your map should reflect your latest thinking,
showing which ideas you have discarded, which you are still pursuing and, possibly, which
you are favoring. Therefore, as you uncover evidence, do not hesitate to cross out some of
its branches, highlight existing ones, and develop newones.
Fifth, draw your conclusions. Once you have gathered evidence and decided which
hypotheses are valid, conclude on the root causes of your problem and capture these con-
clusions in your map (see Figure 3.9). Chapter4 will discuss these processes in detail.
Summarizing, the first two rules of issue maps govern their general purpose and me-
chanics. As Figure 3.10 shows, vertically, maps consider alternative answers to the key ques-
tion and horizontally they investigate the nature of these answers in furtherdepth.
The last two rules are about how to structuremaps.

39. Technically, especially in a statistical sense, you do not accept a hypothesis but, rather, fail to reject it. See Chapter4.

Identify Potential RootCauses 57

58

4. MAPS HAVE A MECE STRUCTURE

The third rule of maps helps us be complete and efficient in our analysis by considering every
potential answer exactly once, having neither involuntary overlaps nor gaps in our analysis.
Having no overlaps means that a maps branches are mutually exclusive (ME):If you
consider a potential answer to the key question in one branch, do not consider it in another.
Figure 3.11 illustrates the ME concept. Imagine that you are driving and getting to an in-
tersection. You can go straight or turn left, but you cannot do both at the same time:choos-
ing one course of action precludes you from choosing the other; therefore, the actions are
mutually exclusive.
Having no gaps means that the branches of a map, taken as a whole, are collectively
exhaustive (CE); that is, they account for all potential answers at least once. So, if you are
getting to that crossroad, you might continue straight in your lane, change lanes, turn left,
make a U-turn, or stop (see Figure3.12).
Figure 3.13 illustrates how these two properties combine. In the resulting mutually ex-
clusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE) structure, you have considered all possible ele-
ments exactlyonce.
The structure of maps is MECE. Note that the MECEness of issue maps applies only
to their structure, not to the answers themselves. This is an important distinction, so lets
look at it in further detail.
Mutual exclusivity implies a preclusion:Including an answer to your key question in a
branch of your map precludes you from including it in another branch. This preclusion for
the structure of the map is good because it prevents redundancies, which helps you be ef-
ficient. If you consider an idea once, there is no need to consider itagain.
The answers themselves, however, are not necessarily MECE. This preclusion re-
quirement does not necessarily apply to the answers themselves. For instance, a company
might not be profitable because it has low revenues and high costs, as Figure 3.14 shows.
Having one problemlow revenuesdoes not preclude the company from also having the

No overlaps: (i.e., no intersection).

The sets are disjoint.

A
(turn left)

B
(go straight)

At the crossroad, you can turn

left or go straight but not both.

FIGURE3.11: Mutually exclusive means that there are no overlaps in the structure of a map. If an
element is in one branch, it cannot be in another.

58 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 59

No gaps: you have considered all options.

E
A
B

C
D

At the crossroad, you can drive straight,

change lanes, turn left, make a U-turn, or stop.

FIGURE3.12: Collectively exhaustive means that there are no gaps:you have considered all potential
answers at leastonce.

otherhigh costs. (In medicine, this simultaneous presence of independent conditions is

called comorbidity.)
The takeaway is that the answers in the map are not MECE, they are independent and
collectively exhaustive, or ICE. Here, independent means distinct:An element of the map
does not require the help of another to answer the key question. (This is analogous to the
independence of claims in critical thinking, which is different from independence in prob-
ability theory where the occurrence or nonoccurrence of one event does not affect the oc-
currence or nonoccurrence of another.)40

No overlaps (ME).
B
(go straight)
A No gaps (CE).
(turn) C
(stop)

At the crossroad, you can A. turn (including taking the left

road, changing lanes or making a U-turn), B. go straight. or C.
stop. This is a MECE structure for your actions.

FIGURE 3.13: (A) turning; (B) going straight; or (C) stopping is a MECE structure for describing what you
can do at the crossroad.

40. (Twardy, 2010). For more on probabilistic independence, see (Schum, 1994)[pp.150151].

Identify Potential RootCauses 59

60

The structure is MECE: if an answer appears in one

branch of the map, it does not appear in another (ME)
and the map includes all the possible answers (CE).

Because our
revenues from
The answers are ICE: one answer
returning clients
being true does not necessarily
Because our are too low
preclude others being true as
revenues are
Because our well.
too low
revenues from Rather, they are independent (I)
Why isnt new clients are that is, one being true does not
our company too low require another one being true
profitable? and all possible answers are
included (CE).
Because our
fixed costs are
Because our too high
costs are too
high Because our
variable costs
are too high

FIGURE3.14: Although the structure of the map is MECE, the answers themselves areICE.

In the profitability example, Figure 3.15, (a)shows how one can force both the structure
and the answers to be MECE. Here, the first level has three branches:one situation where
only revenues are too low, one where only costs are too high, and, to achieve collective ex-
haustiveness, a third situation where both happen concurrently. By adding an exclusionary
criterion (the word only) in the first two branches and an inclusionary criterion (both) in
the third, we ensure that the answers are not just independent but truly mutually exclusive.41
But forcing answers to be MECE comes at a price. First, the map is less user-friendly in
that some readers may have to think longer to understand the breakdown structure. Second,
it raises a significant challenge when thinking about the next level of the map:How will you
break down that third branch? Furthermore, it is unclear whether the resulting map is more
insightful than the one in Figure 3.15 (b)with ICE answers (more on insight in the next sec-
tion). Therefore, forcing the answers to be MECE has little value in this case. This seems to
be generalizable:It usually pays off to focus on making the structure MECE and not worry
whether the answers themselves are MECE orICE.
Having established the importance of MECEness in maps, lets talk about how to make
your structures moreMECE.
Generate potential answers before the structure. When dealing with an unfamil-
iar subject, it may be easier to first generate potential answerstrying to be collectively
exhaustivebefore structuring them in a map (being mutually exclusive), rather than the
reverse. That is, first apply creative thinking and then critical thinking.
Defer criticism. This is idea generation, not idea evaluation (that will come when test-
ing hypotheses, in the next chapter). Thinking creatively requires suspending judgment.42

41. See (First,2005).

42. (De Bono,1970).

60 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 61

(a) Because only our (b)

revenues from returning
clients are too low
Because only our Because our
Because only our revenues from
revenues are too revenues from new
clients are too low returning clients
low are too low
Because our
Because both our
revenues from returning revenues are
clients and new ones are too low Because our
too low revenues from
Why isnt our Why isnt our new clients are
Because only our fixed too low
company costs are too high company
profitable? profitable?
Because only our
Because only our variable costs are too Because our
costs are too high high fixed costs are
Because our too high
Because both our fixed
and variable costs are costs are
too high too high Because our
variable costs
Because both our are too high
revenues are too
low and our costs
are too high
?

MECE structure with MECE answers MECE structure with ICE answers
One can find such a structure, but it ...instead, it is usually desirable to use a MECE
complicates the map structure and accept that the answers might
only be ICE.

FIGURE3.15: One could have a MECE structure with MECE answers, but this is not necessarily
desirable.

Paraphrasing creativity theorist Tim Hurson, the creative thinking process is generative, pro-
ducing something out of nothing, but its product is fragile:The ideas generated are not ready
to sustain serious criticism.43 Therefore, you need to let your ideas gather some strength, so
do not be too quick in deciding that they do not belong in your map; judging new ideas too
early restricts innovation (see Figure 3.16 for an illustration).44 Instead, strive to be nonjudg-
mental, at least until your idea has gathered some strength and stands a chance to resist a
critical-thinking analysis; and make sure to capture everything that occurs toyou.45
Psychologist Edward De Bono points out that some potential answers will be obvi-
ously inappropriate.46 But the point of delaying judgment in these cases is to extract as
much usefulness out of these ideas as possible before discarding them. For instance, can
they be modified so that they can become appropriate? Or can they lead you to under-
stand your problem better? Or can they lead you to realize that your current perspective is
wrong? Observing that in the early 20th century, the idea of sinking battleships by having
planes drop bombs on them was ridiculed by experts including the U.S. Secretary of War,
University of Pennsylvanias Paul Schoemaker points out that smart people frequently make
wrong assumptions about the future with great certainty.47 So entertaining even dumb
ideas for some time may not be a waste of time afterall.

43. (Hurson,2007).
44. (Adams,2001).
45. (Maier, 1963)[pp.125126], ( John S.Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 2002)[p.53].
46. (De Bono,1970).
47. (Schoemaker,1995).

Identify Potential RootCauses 61

62

Nice, but well need an environmental-impact study, a warranty, recall bulletins, recycling facilities,
and twenty-four-hour customer support.

FIGURE3.16: At first, withhold judgment of ideas and consider every logically valid one.
Reproduced with permission from Tom Cheney/The NewYorker Collection/The CartoonBank.

Steven Sample, an engineer and the former president of the University of Southern
California, calls this process free thinking:The key to thinking free is first to allow your
mind to contemplate really outrageous ideas, and only subsequently apply the constraints of
practicality, practicability, legality, cost, time, and ethics. Thinking free is an unnatural act;
not one person in a thousand can do it without enormous effort.48
So, withhold judgment:do not give any consideration to whether an idea is too unlikely
to be a cause for your problem. If it is a logically valid answer to your key questionno
matter how far-fetchedand it is not in the voluntarily left-out answers section of your
why card, include it in yourmap.
Be more CE by balancing satisficing and optimizing. Satisficing combines satis-
fying and sufficing. The term was coined by economics Nobel Prize laureate Herbert
Simon in the 1950s; it is defined as, when looking for answers to a problem, accepting an
available option as soon as you find one that meets a minimal threshold.49 Satisficing is es-
pecially appealing when there are many alternatives to choose from and the lack of a known
structure in the problem makes it difficult to evaluate alternatives.50
At the other end of the spectrum, optimizing means looking for the best possible answer.
No matter how good the answers you find along the way, you keep looking for a betterone.
In regards to culinary tastes, a pure satisficer will always go to the same restaurant and
order the same dish (see Figure 3.17). After all, if he likes it, why take a chance on something

48. (Sample & Bennis, 2002). See also (Berger, 2010)[pp.6166] for how designers break free of conventional patterns.
49. (Simon,1972).
50. (Simon,1990).

62 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 63

Pure
New optimizer

Restaurant
Pure
Same satisficer

Same New
Dish

FIGURE3.17: Apure satisficer always sticks to a known, acceptable solution whereas a pure optimizer
never stops looking for a better one. Neither of these approaches is ideal when solving complex
problems.

else? Conversely, a pure optimizer will always try a new restaurant and a new dish because,
no matter what she has tried before, surely there is something better outthere.
The pure satisficer has found an answer that is good enough and sticks with it. So he
throws away innovation and there is no room for progress. On the other hand, the pure
optimizer throws away practical considerations, such as deadlines. In fact, real-world opti-
mization is impossible.51 So neither extreme is ideal; instead, you should adopt a balanced
approach. You may do so by trying the chocolate souffl in numerous restaurants or sticking
to one place and trying every dish on the menu. Either way, consider using several sittings
todoso.
First, strive to optimize. Decision scientist Baruch Fischhoff and his collaborators
showed that people presented with pruned fault trees did not realize how much was left
out and, as a result, overestimated the exhaustiveness of the tree. So you must make your
diagnostic map as exhaustive as possible.52
Paraphrasing American psychologist Osborn the man who popularized
brainstormingbefore having a good idea, you need to have lots of ideas, and it is okay
to have bad ones.53 Celebrated chemist Linus Pauling agrees; as he put it, The way to get
good ideas is to get lots of ideas and throw the bad ones away.54 For an illustration, consider
Edisons famous experiments of passing electricity through hundreds of materials during
several years before selecting carbon filaments.55
So your quest for answers should start with optimization. This is the divergent thinking
part where you are looking for innovative ways to answer your key question. Actively look-
ing for new answers, even absurd ones, will get you out of your comfort zone and force you
to explore new ways.56

51. See (Simon, 1996)[pp.2829].

52. (Fischhoff etal., 1978), see also (Hora, 2007)[p.143].
53. (Osborn,1953).
54. See also (Bo T.Christensen & Schunn, 2009)[pp.4849].
55. (Ness, 2012). Exploring various options supports effective group decisions; see (Nixon & Littlepage, 1992)for em-
pirical evidence and a discussion.
56. (Adams,2001).

Identify Potential RootCauses 63

64

Because the
information on
new employees
is not up to date
Because the
information on
new employees Because the
Why isnt our is not up to date Why isnt our information on
employee employee current
database up database up employees is not
Because the up to date
to date? information on
to date?
other employees
is not up to date Because the
information on
former
employees is not
up to date

FIGURE3.18: Spell out all the elements in yourmap.

Do not stick with the usual suspects for answers:go look for the irrational ones, the
dumb ideas, the suggestions that will make people laugh at you.57 At this stage, the plausibil-
ity of an answer is irrelevant. Rather, you are interested in mapping the universe of possibili-
ties; that is, being as collectively exhaustive as possible. (Chapter5 has more ideas to help
you dothat.)
You can use your map to help you improve your divergent thinking. For instance, do not
settle for a branch that says other. Instead, make a conscious effort to name the elements of
that branch (see Figure 3.18). This is especially true for the early nodes of the map, because
each of those impact a large part of themap.
Lets apply this to the example of an information technology company that wants to
understand why it is not more profitable. Figure 3.19 shows how a standard breakdown
of profitability between revenues (top branch) and costs (bottom) can be initially used.
Revenues may then be broken down by types of products (maintaining licenses vs. mainte-
nance services). And we can drill deeper; for instance, the reason why our volume of sales
is too low might be because some of our clients switch to competitors or because they stay
with us but do not contract maintenance.
Those clients who switch might do so because our offering is inferior to our competi-
tors or because it is competitive but clients still think it is inferior. If it is inferior, it might be
because our price, our product, our promotion, and/or our place (the 4Ps of the market-
ing mix, see further in this chapter) are notright.
And, indeed, you should break these down even further:our price can be wrong because
it is too high or because it feels too high; perhaps because we do not price our goods in the
right way, such as asking clients to pay cash when they want to pay on a monthly basis or
asking for a monthly payment that is too high for too short a time. By now, we are at the
seventh level of detail and the map can go on for severalmore.

57. Designers are encouraged to leverage ignorance to be creative; see (Berger, 2010)[pp.2428]. See also (Thompson,
2011)[pp.205206] for the value of exposing teams to unusual or even incorrect options.

64 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 65

Because our price

is not right
Because our
product is not right
Because our
offering is inferior Because our
promotion is not
Because our right
clients switch to Because our
Because our our competitors place is not right
Because revenues volume of sales is
from maintaining too low
licenses are too Because our
low offering is
equal/superior but
Because our clients think it is not
revenues are too
low Because our
clients stay with us
Why is not our but do not contract
company maintenance
profitable? Because our
revenue on each
sale is too low
Because clients
Because clients need them but
Because revenues do not want to think they do not
from maintenance pay them
services are too Because clients
low do not need them
Because clients
cannot pay them

Because our fixed

costs are too high
Because our costs
are too high Because our
variable costs are
too high

FIGURE3.19:Your diagnostic map can support your divergent thinking by showing branches that are less
developed than others.

When seeing this for the first time, some are skeptical, arguing that maps make the
problem-solving process more complicated. Furthermore, creating a map is time consum-
ing, and it seems easier to just go with yourgut.
But the complexity is in the problem, whether one maps it out or not. Just as a geo-
graphic map helps us navigate a new territory, an issue map helps clarify an unfamiliar prob-
lem, making the complexity explicit by helping you identify all the relevant elements and
placing them in the analysis. A map also clarifies which analysis is necessary, helping to
devise a systematic plan to test hypotheses.
It is true that creating a map requires a time investment, sometimes several days. This
might not be worthwhile for a simpler problem or one in which you have extensive expertise.
For CIDNI problems, however, especially ones where a misdiagnosis is costly, going through
this process may be a better approach than going with a gut-feeling answer and beingwrong.
Decide when to stop. If you were to take the instructions to be collectively exhaustive
literally, you would become stuck in looking for additional causes indefinitely. This is not
desirable.
Indeed, information has economics, with costs and benefits of obtaining additional
information. As we will discuss in Chapter 4, more information is not always better.
For instance, looking for additional information has an opportunity cost: While you
are doing it, you are not doing other things that may be more beneficial for solving your

Identify Potential RootCauses 65

66

Because they like

him very much Hypothesis 2: Harry is
missing because someone
Because someone else is Because they do not other than the housekeeper
keeping him to prevent like him/us is holding him hostage
us from getting him back

FIGURE3.20: Stop drilling when expanding further does not bring additional practical value.

problem. Or, if more information is expensive to obtainin time and/or moneybut

will only have a small payoff, its costs exceed its benefits and you may be better off not
pursuingit.
So you will need to decide when to stop expanding your issue map and move on to
formulating your hypothesis set. There is no hard-set rule to know when that moment has
come because it is highly case-dependent, but here are some indicators.
If you are on a deadline, you can set up a maximum time for your analysis. But
beware:Time pressure does not promote creativity and, in general, is linked to decreased
performance, so avoid being pressured by the clock if youcan.58
Alternatively, you can set a goal for a total number of ideas. This is also risky because you
might sacrifice quality just to reach your goal. If you are using this approach, consider picking
a high number and be prepared to decide which ideas actually count as new contributions.
Yet another way is to set a goal based on the levels of breakdowns. The five whys root-
cause analysis, for instance, is widely used by quality engineers and managers. It states that
one should drill into the key question through at least five layers.59
This is also risky, because if your goal is too low, you might not push yourself enough
and, if it is too high, you might include some artificial levels of breakdown just to reachit.
Perhaps the best approach is to think in terms of the added value of each node.60 To
decide, use two questions:ask yourself, What else? and In what specificways?
What else can be the cause of the problem? helps you develop the map vertically, en-
suring that you have considered all of its variables or dimensions.61
In what specific ways is this contributing to the original problem? helps you develop
the map horizontally:It helps you identify all potential states of each variable. You know
you can safely stop expanding your map once answering this question does not provide any
additional practical insight.
Figure 3.20 shows how we have reached this stage in Harrys case. We ventured that
someone might be keeping Harry to prevent us from recovering him either because they
like him very much or because they dislike him/us. In what specific ways do they like him
so much? Maybe Harry is cute. Maybe he is friendly, funny, or his hair color matches the
finders sofa color. Although valid, we feeland this is just that, a judgment callthat these
considerations do not bring additional practical insight to explaining why Harry is missing,

58. (Elstein, 2009; Parnes, 1961; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham,2004).
59. See, for instance (Andersen & Fagerhaug, 2006; Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005; Collins & Porras,1996).
60. This criterion is somewhat similar to Brownes difference threshold (Browne & Pitts, 2004; Browne, Pitts, &
Wetherbe,2007).
61. (Barrier, Li, & Jensen,2003).

66 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 67

so we decide to stop expanding that branch. As with many other rules in solving CIDNI
problems, it is your decision whether to keep expanding yourmap.
So far, we have seen how maps consistently answer the key question, progress from the
key question to the conclusions, and have a MECE structure. The fourth and final rule of
issue maps is to develop them in a way that helps clarify the problem; in one word, they
should be insightful.

5. MAPS ARE INSIGHTFUL

Any key question can be broken down in more than one way, each complying with the first
three rules. But you must pick only one of these breakdowns; ideally, you would use the
most insightfulone.
The first three rules are absolute:either your map complies with them or not. Your map
and the rule are the only two things you need to consider. On the other hand, insightfulness
is relative:you need to compare alternatives before deciding whether your map complies.
Here, being insightful amounts to adding value. To illustrate, imagine that you are walk-
ing down the street and come across a stopped car. The driver rolls down his window and
asks, Where am I? You reply, In a car. Of course, you could have replied, At the intersec-
tion of ____ and ____roads. Both answers are factually true, but the value they add dif-
fers. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the second answer brings the most value, which
makes the first so absurd that it might becomefunny.
But the first answer is funny only because we assume that the driver is lost and asking
for directions. Instead, assume that he was just involved in an accident, lost consciousness,
and is only now coming back to his senses; would the first answer not be the insightful
one, then? In fact, in that case the second becomes so irrelevant that it might become the
funnyone.62
This is the relativity aspect of insightfulness:To assess how insightful an answer is, you
must compare the value it adds with that of its alternatives. So lets talk about how we incor-
porate that notion to create insightfulmaps.
First, generate alternatives for the first node of your map. The process starts by
identifying at least two alternative variables to investigate your key question.
As an illustration, consider having to classify the numbers on a casino roulette wheel,
shown in Figure3.21.
Alternative 1 might be number basedwith its states being evens and odds.
Alternative 2 might be color basedwith its states being black, red, and green. Those
are the standard ways, but there are others. Alternative 3 could be another number-based
onewith states being from 0 to 10, from 11 to 27, and from 28 to 36. And so on. All
these alternatives are MECE structures, so they are all candidates.

62. Schums counterfactual assertions are related to our concept of insightfulness:He points out that, in any situation,
there is a background of conditions, any of which can be brought up. The key is to bring up the appropriate one(s) to
stand against that background (Schum, 1994)[pp.149150].

Identify Potential RootCauses 67

68

Black

Types of Even Types of

numbers on a numbers on a Red
roulette roulette
Odd
Green

From 0 to 10 Ones with a 3

Types of in them
Types of
numbers on a From 11 to 27 numbers on a
roulette roulette
Ones without a
From 28 to 36 3 in them

... ...

FIGURE3.21:There are always alternative structures to build an issue map; consider at least two of
these alternatives and pick the most insightfulone.

Because he is
somewhere
close to the
house/yard Because
Current someone has
location kidnapped him
Because he is Actors
somewhere far
away from the Because he
house/yard escaped

Because he is
Because he stuck
does not want to somewhere
Current
come back Necessary physical state
conditions Why is Because he is
Because he Harry roaming freely
cannot come missing?
back
Because
Because he left something
through the pushed him out
yard of the
Initial point of
departure house/yard
Because he left
through the Force
house Because
something
attracted him
Because he was away from the
taken away house/yard
Means by
Because he left which he left
on his own

Variables States

FIGURE3.22:To generate alternative breakdowns, consider all the variables that you could use to
describe the key question.
 69

TABLE3.1: Compare Variables toIdentify Their Respective Insightfulness

Variable Implications Decision

Actors: Helps identify whether we should involve the police; therefore, it
helps select the means to find Harry. However, it focuses on the
cause of disappearance, not on Harrys current situation, which is
not very solution oriented (maybe someone has kidnapped him and
then released him).
Current physical Helps select the means to find Harry and focuses on Harrys
state: current situation.
Force: Focuses primarily on the cause of disappearance, not on Harrys
current situation.
Current location: Helps select the means to find Harry and focuses on Harrys
current situation.
Necessary Focuses on Harry, not on what we can do to bring him back. ~
conditions:
Initial point of Focuses on the disappearance, not on Harrys current situation.
departure:
Means by which Focuses on the disappearance, not on Harrys current situation.
he left:

Generating alternative breakdowns can be challenging because it can be hard to look

past the one or two obvious structures (what psychologists call fixation, as we have seen
earlier in this chapter). Your job is to look for possible alternativesthat is, the variables
on which you can develop a breakdown. In the roulette example, we found two:colors and
numbers, with various number-based variables. To help you do this, you may have vari-
ous members of the team work independently.63 Figure 3.22 shows that for Harrys case we
found several more possible structures.
So the process starts with identifying these variables. Next, think of all the states that
these variables can take. 64 Because each of your variables maps the entire key question, you
must choose only one, otherwise there would be redundancies in yourmap.
Next, assess the insightfulness of each alternative by understanding its so what?
The insightfulness of an alternative depends on its context. In the roulette example, you
would not choose a number-based framework to describe a roulette to a child who cannot
count. Similarly, it would be a poor choice to use a color-based classification if your inter-
locutor is colorblind.
Pitch alternatives against one another to uncover the benefits and drawbacks of each.
Analyze their respective so what? for your diagnosis. To help you do so, consider using
a formal template, such as that in Table 3.1, for the case study. This also has the benefit of
capturing your thinking for future reference.

63. (Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, 2004)[p.91].

64. These states are called values in Artificial Intelligence parlance; see (Quinlan,1986).

Identify Potential RootCauses 69

70

Comparing these variables helps us identify how we should decide among them. First,
it becomes apparent that some variables focus on Harrys disappearance while others high-
light his current state. From a practical perspective, we realize that how he came to be miss-
ing is only important if it relates to how we can find him. Therefore, we would prefer a
structure focusing on his current state, which will be more solution oriented. Second, some
structures seem to help us select means of retrieval but others do not. Finally, some break-
downs put usversus someone elsein the drivers seat (What can I do to find him?).
This is a recurrent theme in our approach:you should phrase your problem as much as pos-
sible in terms of what you can do to solve it. Even if you need the help of others, you should
be thinking about how you can influence them to helpyou.
Passing our various variables through these filters leaves us with two possibilities
current physical state and current location. We are unable to rank their relative insightful-
ness further, so we conclude that either one of them is a good initial variable for the map
and, having to select one, we choose thefirst.
Having selected the most insightful alternative, discard the others and start de-
veloping your map. Going through the comparative exercise described above is especially
worthwhile for the initial node. As you move to deeper nodes, choosing a specific variable
over another has lower impact because each only impacts an increasingly smaller part of
the problem. So you might decide that you do not need to be as cautious and you advance
more quickly.
Next, we list the variables states in a MECE way:Harry is missing because either he is
stuck somewhere or he is roaming freely. Then write a MECE list of their respective states.
Continue until you have achieved your desired level of explicitness.

6. IDEAS TOSTART YOURMAP

Lets look at a few ideas to help you get started drawing issuemaps.
Work in a setting that is right for you. We all have different work habits. Ones think-
ing and productivity varies with the time of the day, the availability of interactions with
other team members, the length of a work session, the level of distractions, the amount of
caffeine ingested, whether one has seen a comedy recently, and a plethora of other factors.65
The more problems you solve, the more self aware you become. Notice how you work in
various settings and use this information to create an environment that is right foryou.
Use analogies to approach unfamiliar problems. You do not have to start each
new map from scratch; instead, think of leveraging previous efforts whenever possible.
Analogical thinking is a type of reasoning that relies on comparing situations to understand
patterns of relational roles in a familiar situation, the source, and apply them to an unfamiliar
one, the target.66

65. See, for instance (Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987; Martins & Terblanche, 2003; Oldham & Cummings, 1996;
Shalley, 1995; Shalley etal., 2004; Spellman & Schnall, 2009). For an example, see (Gick & Holyoak,1980).
66. (Keith J.Holyoak, 2012). Note:In this book, Ido not distinguish between analogies and metaphors.

70 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 71

Sources: Targets:
Because we start the
manufacturing/delivery
Because I left too late process too late
Why cant we
Why am I late deliver our
to work? products on
Because I travelled too
slowly time?
Because our
manufacturing/delivery
process is too slow

Because my slice is too Because my market

small share is too small
Why dont Why dont I
I have more have more
cake? customers? Because the whole
Because the entire cake
is too small market is too small

FIGURE3.23: Using analogies can help you shed light on unfamiliar problems.

Assume that you are facing a logistics problemsay, you are to diagnose why your com-
pany does not deliver its products on timebut you know little about logistics. By equating
the problem to one that you are more familiar withfor instance, getting to work lateyou
can gain some insight into your unfamiliar problem (see Figure3.23).
Similarly, imagine that you want to understand why you do not have more customers
for one of your products but you do not know much about business administration. By
equating the number of customers to something that you know about, say, cake, you are in
the business of understanding why you do not have more cake, a situation that anyone with
siblings knows rather well. Maybe your slice/number of customers is too small, perhaps
because your siblings/competitors are forcing it to be. Or, maybe the entire cake/market is
too small, that is, there are not enough people currently buying this type of product, either
yours or your competitors.
A critical component of a good analogy is for the structure and its content to be a good
model of the target.67 This may require you to let go of surface features to focus on the un-
derlying structure of the problems,68 looking at the relations between objects as opposed to
the attributes of objects.69 With this requirement in mind, you can find analogies anywhere,
from cases that are structurally close to your problemsay, studying the flow of traffic by
studying fluid dynamicsto distant ones, such as equating the clustering of ions on gra-
phene in a battery charging under high current to that of people crowding into a subway car
at rush hour. Distant analogies, in particular, may promote creativity.70

67. (Gavetti & Rivkin, 2005; Keith J.Holyoak,2012).

68. (Keith J.Holyoak & Koh, 1987), (National Research Council, 2011)[pp.136138].
69. (Gentner,1983).
70. (Bo T.Christensen & Schunn, 2007; Smith & Ward, 2012)(Keith J.Holyoak, 2012)[p.240]. (This is contested; see
(Enkel & Gassmann, 2010)for a discussion.)

Identify Potential RootCauses 71

72

Keep in mind, however, that two aspects of using analogies can be dangerous. First, an
analogy can be constraining, limiting one into looking at a problem from just one perspec-
tive when several may be available.71 For instance, epidemiologist Roberta Ness observes
that our conditioning to thinking of cancer as an enemy limits us in how we manage it and
that also thinking of cancer as a neighbor might open additional avenues such as, in some
cases, proper containment.72
Also, because analogical inference is an inductive process, it is uncertain.73 So, al-
though the process may be useful, check periodically to ensure that you are drawing correct
inferences.
Recycle discarded variables. Having selected one variable for your maps first node,
you should keep the others because they may help you build deeper nodes in your map. For
instance in Harrys case, in the because he is stuck somewhere branch, you may decide
that it is insightful to look into whether an actor is involved in keeping Harry stuck. As such,
the efforts you have deployed to think of alternatives for the first node are not wasted.
Consider using existing frameworks. Drawing an issue map is hard work, which
sometimes can be eased considerably when you use an existing framework. Figure 3.24,
Figure3.25, Figure3.26, and Figure 3.27 are examples of a few common frameworks from
various disciplines. These frameworks provide a potential structure on which to base part

Specific

Measurable Necessary Ability/can

SMART conditions
goals Achievable for action Willingness/want
Relevant
Time-based

Political factors

Logic Economic factors

Effective
Emotion
persuasion Sociocultural
Credibility factors
PESTLE
analysis Technological
factors

Insufficient supply Legal factors

System
saturation
Excessive demand Environmental
factors

FIGURE3.24: Existing MECE frameworks can be useful to create a new issuemap.

71. This is called functional fixedness. See, for instance (Bo T.Christensen & Schunn, 2009)[pp.5054].
72. (Ness, 2012)[pp.3839].
73. (Keith J.Holyoak, 2012). See also (De Bono, 1970; Dunbar & Klahr, 2012b; Gentner, 1983; Gentner & Toupin, 1986;
Gick & Holyoak, 1980; Keith J.Holyoak & Thagard, 1989, 1997; Ribaux & Margot, 1999; Spellman & Holyoak,1996).

72 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 73

Quantity Cash cow:

high market share
Revenue
low market growth
Price
Profitability Star:
Fixed
high market share
Cost + Product types high market growth
Variable (BCG matrix)
Dog:
low market share
low market growth
Necessary Good plan Question mark:
conditions for
planned action Good execution low market share
high market growth

FIGURE3.25: Existing MECE frameworks can be useful to create a new issue map (continued).

of your issue map. These can be a good starting point, as long as you remain cautious. In
particular, do not assume that their MECEness is foolproof.
To illustrate, consider the marketing mix of Figure 3.26. First introduced in the 1960s,
the concept says that when marketing a product, one should adopt a holistic approach,
looking at 4Ps:the product itself, as well as its price, place, and promotion.74
Although it is still the go-to approach for many marketers the world over, this structure
is not fully MECE. For instance, Van Waterschoot and Van den Bulte note that the sales
promotion subcategory of promotion overlaps to a large extent with the advertising and
personal selling subcategories.75
Problems may arise on the collective exhaustiveness side, too. For instance, the Gricean
maxims shown in Figure 3.26 are principles to facilitate cooperation, and they can be a good
basis to develop an issue map related to communication. But it is unclear if the set is CE.
Some argue, for instance, that a fifth principlebe politeis relevant.76
Therefore, although an existing framework might provide a shortcut, you should see
these structures as starting points that may need to be adapted, rather than trustworthy
correct answers. In the end, you still have to ensure that whichever structure you adopt is
MECE and insightful for your specific problem.
Consider structuring your map following a MECE process. Some diagnostic maps
may benefit from thinking in terms of a process with various steps. In a setting where a prob-
lem occurs because at least one of a processs parts does not function properly, all you have
to do is recreate the process as a succession of MECE steps and test each step to identify
the defective one(s). For instance, suppose that you want to understand why parts that your
plant orders from a provider do not get to you on time (see Figure 3.28). You may do so by

74. See, for instance (Grnroos,1997).

75. (Van Waterschoot & Van den Bulte,1992).
76. (Pfister,2010).

Identify Potential RootCauses 73

 Variety
Quality
Knowledge

Design Attributes of a
Skills
Features professional
Brand name Values
Product
Packaging
Sizes
Warranties Be relevant
Services
Returns Gricean maxims Be concise
for effective
List price
collaboration Be clear
Discounts
Price Allowances Be truthful
Marketing 4Ps
Payment methods
Credit terms
Channels
Effective (doing
Coverage the right things)
Assortments
Place Process
Locations Efficient (doing
Inventory things in the
right way)
Transport
Sales promotion
Advertising
Promotion Sales force Necessary
Conditions
Public relations
Sufficient
Direct marketing

FIGURE3.26: Existing MECE frameworks can be useful to create a new issue map (continued).

Current Competitors
competitors
Ohmaes 3 Cs Customers
Suppliers
7S 5 forces Company
Clients
New entrants

Substitutes Strengths:
positive,
internal
Structure Weaknesses:
Hard Strategy negative,
internal
Systems SWOT
Opportunities:
McKinseys 7S Shared positive,
values external
Soft Style
Threats:
Skills negative,
Staff external

FIGURE3.27: Existing MECE frameworks can be useful to create a new issue map (continued).
 75

1. Find 2. Order 4. Produce 5. Deliver

Process: provider 3. Pay part part
part

Owner: Us Us Us Provider Provider

Because we were late

WHY map: finding the provider

Because we were late

Why did we ordering the part
get the part
late? Because our provider was
late producing the part

Because our provider was

late delivering the part

FIGURE3.28: AMECE process can be a good basis to structure your diagnosticmap.

first mapping out the process as a succession of steps. These can now be a candidate for the
basic structure of your diagnosticmap.
An existing framework or process might be helpful to start a map, but you still need
to decide if it is insightful for your specific problem. So, do not assume an existing frame-
work or process to be automatically better than one you develop. Instead, treat it as one
potential option and assess its insightfulness for your specific problem by comparing it with
alternatives.

7. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?
Figure 3.29 shows the diagnostic map for our case study. Having decided that the most in-
sightful initial variable is to consider Harrys current physical state, we continue developing
the map. Some branches stop quickly (for instance, because he, Figure3.29, got stuck)
because we feel they reach explicitness right away. Other branches progress further.
When considering that someone might be keeping Harry from leaving where he is, think-
ing of those doing so to prevent us from recovering him and of those doing so to enable us
to recover him is not enough. To be collectively exhaustive, the options in that breakdown
also need to include the case of someone keeping him with neither intention. Continuing
the breakdown of that branch, we have a specific idea in mind:that of a kid who would have
picked up Harry and liked him so much that he decided to keep him without even thinking
about the consequences for us. Surely there are other people who might do the same, but
we cannot think of one in particular and feel that spelling them out does not bring value to
the map, so we lump them together in a someone else branch. This is equivalent to using
others, which as we discussed earlier is to be avoided but is acceptable, especially if it is
deep in a map, where its impact is limited. The final map of Figure 3.29 completely breaks
down our key question, or at least we think it does. And this is a major achievement because,

Identify Potential RootCauses 75

76

Because the housekeeper is keeping him

Because the to prevent us from getting him back.
person who is
keeping him does Because someone Because they like
so to prevent us else is keeping him very much
from getting him him to prevent us
back from getting him Because they
back do not like him/us

Because a neighbor is keeping him to

enable us to get him back

Because the police are keeping him to

enable us to get him back

Because Because the Because an animal shelter is keeping him

someone is person who is to enable us to get him back
keeping him keeping him does
Because he is from leaving so to enable us to Because a pet association is keeping him
stuck where he is get him back to enable us to get him back
somewhere
Because a vet office is keeping him
to enable us to get him back

Because someone else is keeping him

to enable us to get him back
WHY is
Harry the Because the
dog person who is Because a kid has found Harry and
missing? keeping him does wants to keep him
so to neither
enable us to nor Because someone else has found
prevent us from Harry and wants to keep him
getting him back

Because he,
on his own, got
stuck

Because he is
roaming in a
street

Because he is Because he is
roaming in a roaming in a park
public place
Because he is Because he is roaming in the nearby
Because he is school
roaming freely roaming in
another public
place Because he is roaming in another
public place

Because he is
roaming in a
private place

FIGURE3.29: Harrys diagnostic map starts with his current physical state and develops to various levels
of detail, depending on the branch.

if we have worked well, the reason why Harry is missingwhatever it may beis in it; we
have now fully identified the solutionspace.
Chapter5 provides further ideas for building good maps. You might want to look at it
now, but you already know enough to develop solidmaps.
It is easy to feel overwhelmed the first few times that you build an issue map, so try to
keep things simple. Focus on following the four rules as best you can and resist your initial
urge to satisfice. But do not focus too much on making it perfect. If you have worked reason-
ably well, you will now have identified all the potential causes of your problem. Next, you
will need to determine which of those is the actual cause. That is the object of Chapter4.

76 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 77

NOTES
Issue maps. Many strategy consultants are trained to map complex problems and
call the product one of several names (e.g., issue tree, logic tree, or hypothesis tree).
Unfortunately, there is little available material on how to develop them. Consultants have
been using trees for a whileOhmae77 mentioned them in the 1980sbut the technique
of using a graphic to connect a question with potential answers has been around since at
least the Second World War.78 In my experience, most consultants only worry about one
ruleMECEnesswhile developing trees. It seems, however, that asking students to also
use the other three rules helps them create consistently better trees/maps. Istarted calling
these structures maps after conversations with Tim van Gelder, partly as an effort to help
people stop referring to them as decision trees, which they are not, and partly to differenti-
ate them from some issue trees from strategy consultancies that connect a key question to
related questions as opposed to potential answers.79
Graphical tools related to problem solving and strategic thinking. See also
Ainsworth, Prain, and Tytler (2011, Buckingham Shum, MacLean, Bellotti, and Hammond
(1997), Clark (2010), Conklin (2005), Diffenbach (1982), Dwyer, Hogan, and Stewart
(2010), Eden (1992), Eden (2004), Eisenfhr, Weber, and Langer (2010), Eppler (2006),
Fiol and Huff (1992), Kaplan and Norton (2000), Ohmae (1982), Okada, Shum, and
Sherborne (2010), Rooney and Heuvel (2004), Shachter (1986), and Shum (2003).
Refraining from using others. Smith and Ward note that divergent thinking is like
naming the members of a category. Both tasks require retrieval of information from memory
and imagination.80
Linking hypotheses and data. In forensic science, reducing linkage blindnessthe
inability to recognize a connection between thingshas been shown to bring valuable
insight.81
Using multiple hypotheses. See Platt and Chamberlin for friendly and compelling
cases on why you should work with several hypotheses.82
Confirmation bias. Nickerson makes a strong argument that one has to work very hard
to not fall prey.83
Mapping out the analysis. van Gelder and Twardy make strong cases for the use of
graphical methods to improve critical thinking. van Gelder & Monk also has a friendly
online tutorial.84

77. (Ohmae,1982).
78. See Dunckers 1945 radiation problem (Duncker & Lees, 1945), also explained in (Bassok & Novick, 2012)[p.414].
79. See (Wiebes, Baaij, Keibek, & Witteveen, 2007)[pp.4150] for an example.
80. (Smith & Ward, 2012)[p.465].
81. (Ribaux & Margot,1999).
82. (Platt, 1964), (Chamberlin, 1965). Alternatively, see (Tweney, Doherty, & Mynatt, 1981)[pp.8385] for a summary.
83. (Nickerson,1998).
84. (van Gelder, 2003), (Twardy, 2010), (van Gelder & Monk,2016).

Identify Potential RootCauses 77

78

MECE versus ICE. Management consultants use MECE extensively, possibly

after Minto helped popularize it.85 They also, however, routinely misuse the ME part.
Differentiating mutual exclusivity from independence is not pedantry:If potential solutions
are not truly mutually exclusive, then one should consider combining them. Sometimes, a
problem gets resolved by combining several partial (and independent) solutions. An illus-
tration of this is the long-tail concept. For instance, selling a multitude of books that each
appeal to a small audience may amount to sizable revenue.86 Thanks to Matthew Juniper at
Cambridge for an enlightening e-mail exchange on the subject.
The case against MEness. Striving for mutual exclusiveness helps avoid redundancies,
which helps us be more efficient. In some cases, however, redundancies are desirable. For
instance, redundancies in airplanes flight control systems help pilots retain some control
of the plane even when primary systems fail.87 Similarly, power grids are designed so that
the failure of one key component (or, in more robust designs, more components) does not
result in a blackout.88 Likewise, shipping companies such as FedEx orbit empty cargo air-
craft at night, which can be diverted quickly to locations where demand suddenly surpasses
capacity.89 The takeaway is that there are some situations where not being ME is better than
beingME.
Insightfulness and frames of reference. Our concept of insightfulness relates to
Spellmans recommendation for intelligence analysts:In analysis it is essential to get the
compared to what correct.90
Ideas to fix overconfidence. See ( J. Edward Russo & Schoemaker, 1992; Arkes,
Christensen, Lai, & Blumer,1987).
Improving critical thinking skills. We can all use help. A study comparing the
problem-solving skills of 30 PhD scientists and 15 conservative ministers found no signifi-
cant differences between the two groups, concluding that in summary, the present findings
raise serious questions about the presumed superiority of at least some scientists reasoning
and problem-solving skills.91

85. (Minto,2009).
86. See (C. Anderson, 2004), (Brynjolfsson, Hu, & Smith, 2006), (Brynjolfsson, Hu, & Simester,2011).
87. See (Orasanu, 2010)[pp.158159].
88. (Pinar, Meza, Donde, & Lesieutre,2010).
89. (Leonhardt,2005).
90. (National Research Council, 2011)[p.136]. See also (Schum, 1994)[pp.126130] for a discussion on the value and
the drawbacks of redundancies.
91. (Mahoney & DeMonbreun,1977).

78 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 79

CHAPTER4

DETERMINE THEACTUAL
CAUSE(S)

You have drawn your diagnostic map, thereby identifying all of the
problems potential root causes. Next, you will lump these causes into judicious groups,
each summarized in a formal hypothesis, decide the order in which you want to test these
hypotheses, conduct the testing, and draw your conclusions.

1. DEVELOP ANINSIGHTFUL SET

OFHYPOTHESES
Having exposed the structure of your key question in the diagnosis map, you have come a
long way. Indeed, you are now facing a well-defined problem:whatever the answer to your
question is, if you have done your job well, it is already in your map.1 Now it is only a
matter of findingit.
Because a map usually contains many elements, it is usually not practical to analyze each
individually. Instead, it is better to lump them into judicious groups, each under a formal
hypothesis. Ahypothesis is a proposition, a potential answer to your key question, which
may or may not be true. In a diagnostic map, a hypothesis says, this part of the map is a
significant cause of my problem.

1. This is analogous to how using scenarios can help simplify a complex planning task by capturing the environment in a
limited number of possible states (Schoemaker,1995).
80

1.1. SUMMARI Z E YOUR MAP INA SET

OFHYPOTHESES
Focus your efforts on the important parts of your problem, and you will have a higher return
on investment. Here are some ideas for doingso.
Link all elements in the map to exactly one hypothesis. In Anderson etal.s words,
hypotheses are like nets; only he who casts will catch,2 so you must associate each element
in your map with a hypothesis. Furthermore, associating an element to more than one hy-
pothesis generates unnecessary duplication of effort. So, to be both effective and efficient,
associate every element in your map with exactly one hypothesis.
Keep the number of hypotheses under control. Although you need to associate all
elements with exactly one hypothesis, you do not need to have an individual hypothesis for
each element. Figure 4.1 shows how you can lump some elements in a group and write a
hypothesis for the entire group. This will clarify your map by reducing the visual and cogni-
tive clutter.
A hypothesis set should have at least two hypotheses to reduce the chance of confirma-
tion bias that comes with considering a single hypothesis.3 The set should also be practical,
so you should not have too many hypotheses. Limitations in our working memory make
it risky to have to consider more than seven elements.4 However, because maps allow us
to write down these elements, thereby expanding our working memory, you may be able
to stretch that upper limit a little bit. From experience, aiming at no more than 10 or 15
hypotheses usually is advisable and, in fact, limiting yourself to a smaller set (say, two to five
hypotheses) may be beneficial.

... Hypothesis 1: ...

... Hypotheses can be
linked to individual
... Hypothesis 2: ...
elements of the
map...
...
...
...
? ... ... ... Hypothesis 3: ...
...
... ... or to groups.
...

... But all elements in

... ... Hypothesis 4: ... the map must be
associated with
... one hypothesis.

FIGURE4.1: Each element in your map must be associated with exactly one hypothesis.

2. (Anderson, Schum, & Twining,2005).

3. (Chamberlin, 1965), (Platt,1964).
4. (Miller, 1956); see also (Cowan,2000).

80 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 81

1.2. C ONC ENTRATE ONWHAT YOU

THINK MATTERS
Use broader hypotheses for the parts of the map that you think are least likely. That way,
if you can find sufficient evidence opposing that hypothesis you can rule out large parts of
your diagnosis map. Here is an analogy to understand this approach and an application in
Harryscase.
When designing a mechanical part, an engineer must ensure that it will resist the stresses
to which it will be subjected. A popular way to test this is to use finite element analysis
(FEA):a computerized model of the part that allows the engineer to numerically simulate
its reaction to physical constraints.
Just as an issue map breaks down a complex question into its components, a finite ele-
ment model breaks down a mechanical part into small elements that form a mesh. Then the
engineer applies a (numerical) load on the mesh to see how each element reacts. The sum
of the elements reactions is the reaction of the entirepart.
The smaller the elements, the more precise the analysis, so a fine mesh is valuable. But a
fine mesh comes at a price because one must have more elements to cover the same geom-
etry and, therefore, one needs more computational power to run the simulation.
Stresses usually are not equal everywhere on a mechanical part. For instance, if one ap-
plies force to a part that has a hole in it, stresses concentrate around the hole. Similarly, a
cantilever beam (a beam that is anchored at one end and free at the otherthink of a diving
board) subject to gravity will generate unequal stresses:greater closer to the anchored edge
as Figure 4.2shows.
We already know that the stresses are unequal so the basic approaches of using either a
fine mesh everywhere or a coarse mesh everywhere are not ideal. Instead, it is better to use a
mesh whose element sizes are tailored to the situation. That is, you can optimize your FEA
by making your mesh finer where you think the problems are more likely to occur. This
requires an initial investment because you need to think about where you want to concen-
trate your analysis as opposed to meshing everything uniformly but, in some instances, this
investment is worthit.
You can apply this same technique when deciding how to assign hypotheses in your
issue map. Typical maps have at least 30 elements, and usually far more. You can treat
each element as an individual hypothesisthat is, use a fine FEA mesh everywherebut
this is problematical for three reasons. First, it is time consuming to analyze. Second, it is
probably not necessary:If you have been collectively exhaustively building your map, you
already have listed all theories, including downright unlikely ones. These do not deserve
as much attention as likely ones, at least not initially. And third, this method may gen-
erate confusion:giving every element the same weight makes it difficult to identify the
importantones.
So only use finer hypotheses to test the parts of your map that are the most important.
And, according to the Pareto principle, there will be parts of your map that are most im-
portant. The Pareto principle (also called the 80/20 rule) is a heuristics, or rule of thumb,
which states that in any cause-and-effect events, a few causessay, 20%account for the
most effectsay, 80%. Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto postulated the rule at the turn of
the 20th century to describe wealth distribution after he observed that 20% of the people

Determine ActualCauses 81
82

Free
end

Low
stresses
Highest
stresses

High
stresses
Fixed
end
1. A beam anchored to a wall is subjected to a vertical force, which 2. A coarse mesh has low computational requirements but yields
results in unequal stresses. An engineer can analyze it numerically imprecise results everywhere.
using one of various finite element models:

3. A fine mesh yields precise results everywhere but has high 4. An optimized mesh yields precise results only where they matter,
computational requirements. thereby keeping computational requirements reasonable. The price
to pay for this is effort in planning (to identify where to focus).

FIGURE4.2: Amesh made of elements of various sizes helps optimize the value of a FEA model,
focusing efforts where they are most needed. This approach also can be used with issuemaps.

owned 80% of the land in Italy. Allow for a few percentage point changes and the distribu-
tion holds true for many types of events across disciplines.5
Lets illustrate this using Harrys case. We identified that one possible explanation for
him being missing is that he is being held hostage. We suspect that the housekeeper might
be holding him hostage, so we think that she deserves her own hypothesis, as Figure 4.3
shows. But we do not really suspect anyone else to be keeping him hostage. Therefore,
although some 7 billion people other than the housekeeper potentially might hold him
hostage, and each could theoretically have his or her own hypothesis, we choose to lump
all those unlikely suspects in one hypothesis and map the Harry is being held hostage
eventuality with just two hypotheses: H1. The housekeeper is holding him hostage or
H2. Someone other than the housekeeper is holding him hostage. If, during our analysis,
we encounter evidence supporting that Harry is being held hostage by someone other
than the housekeeper, we can always revisit that decision and breakdown H2 into various
groups.
To represent the entire map in our set of hypotheses, we also need to consider the case
where people have found Harry and are holding on to him to help us find him (hypothesis 3);

5. See, for instance ( Juran, 1975), (Brynjolfsson, Hu, & Simester,2011).

82 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 83

H2. Harry is missing

because the someone
other than the house-
keeper is holding him
hostage

FIGURE4.3: In Harrys case, five hypotheses cover all the possible root causes for his being missing.

the case where someone is holding on to Harry with no interest in either preventing us from
recovering him or helping us do so (hypothesis 4); and the case where Harry is roaming
or stuck but without anyone elses active participation (hypothesis 5).6 That is, these five
hypotheses cover the entire universe of root causes.

6. In Harrys case, note that the hypotheses are not just independent but truly mutually exclusive:one being true ex-
cludes others being true. So, if we have done a proper job of mapping our problem, the answer is in oneand only
oneofthose.

Determine ActualCauses 83
84

1.3. PHRASE HYPOTHESESWELL

Good hypotheses are testable, unequivocal, and related to the key question. In addition,
whenever useful, consider making them comparative.
Make your hypotheses testable. Ahypothesis should be phrased so that it is falsifiable
(i.e., it is possible to demonstrate that it is wrong) and supportable (i.e., it is possible to
demonstrate that it can be supported). In Platts words, There is no point making hypoth-
eses that are not falsifiable because they do not say anything. It must be possible for an em-
pirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.7 Citing philosopher Karl Popper and
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Gauch notes:To be useful, a
hypothesis should suggest what evidence would support it and what evidence would refute
it. Ahypothesis that cannot in principle be put to the test of evidence may be interesting,
but it is not scientifically useful.8
One way to approach hypotheses is to think of them as fair bets:you want to give your
hypothesis the opportunity to be proven wrong as well as the opportunity to be vindicated.9
Make your hypotheses unequivocal. Using unequivocal hypotheses helps clar-
ify what is needed to test them. Figure 4.4 shows an example of unequivocal hypothe-
ses:They are clear, unambiguous, and it is reasonable to expect that everyone will get the
same meaning out of reading them. To make your hypotheses unequivocal, be as explicit
as possible and include numerical data whenever possible. For instance, instead of, a non-
negligible part of our costs are due to delays from our manufacturing division that could be
avoided, favor, 15% of our costs are due to delays from our manufacturing division that
could be avoided.
Relate hypotheses to the key question. The housekeeper is holding Harry hostage
is shorter than Harry is missing because the housekeeper is holding him hostage. So, all
other things being equal, it is preferable. But not all other things are equal: The second
statement relates the hypothesis to the key question, which brings additional clarity and
helps you relate each bit of analysis back to your overall objective. In general, it is good to

H1: Harry is missing

because the housekeeper
is holding him hostage

H2: Harry is missing

because someone other
than the housekeeper is
holding him hostage

FIGURE4.4: Ensure that your hypotheses are testable and unequivocal and that they directly address
your key question.

7. (Platt,1964).
8. (Gauch, 2003)[p.98].
9. (Mitchell & Jolley, 2009)[pp.7071].

84 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 85

FIGURE4.5: Ensure that you have a good set of hypotheses.

formulate your hypotheses as full declarative sentences that include the key question; for
example, Harry is missing because the housekeeper is holding him hostage.10
Consider using comparative hypotheses when possible. You might consider using com-
parative hypothesesthat is, phrasing hypotheses in a way that you pitch them against one
another. An example would be, The housekeeper keeping Harry hostage is the most likely ex-
planation as to why he is missing. These comparative hypotheses might be particularly useful
in cases where it is possible to quantitatively estimate the probabilities of the various scenarios.
Figure 4.5 summarizes the main attributes of a good set of hypotheses.

2. PRIORITIZE THETESTING
OFHYPOTHESES
Once you have formulated your hypotheses, you must decide the order in which to test
them. Although you could take your hypotheses in the somewhat arbitrary order that they

10. One way to think about diagnostic hypotheses is to see them as scenarios, that is, coherent presentations of the se-
quence of events. See (Vlek, Prakken, Renooij, & Verheij,2013).

Determine ActualCauses 85
86

appear in your issue map, it might be useful to prioritize them in a more reasoned fashion.
Absent tangible information about your specific situation, prioritizing the analysis is one
particular activity in the problem-solving process that explicitly calls for intuition.
There are various ways to prioritize hypotheses. One common way is to start with the most
plausible one(s),11 which is similar to Suttons law in medicine to go where the moneyis.12
Anderson and Schum recommend that you take into account not only the hypotheses
plausibility but also their seriousness and easiness to check.13 Yet another way is to test first
those hypotheses that will have a large impact on your resolution strategy:If we can rule
out that Harry is held hostage, then we know that requesting the police to investigate the
housekeeper is not appropriate.
(Temporarily) discard hypotheses that are too unlikely. In our quest for collective
exhaustiveness, we have considered all logically possible answers to our question, irrespec-
tive of their plausibility. Now is the time to decide if some are too far-fetched. If some are, it
is appropriate to make a judgment call and discard them without further analysis. It is also
important, however, to keep them in mind in case our analysis of other hypotheses leads us
to reject all of those. In that case, we would need to go back to the discarded hypotheses and
test them. In the words of Sherlock Holmes:When you have eliminated the impossible,
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.14
Here are a couple of additional ideas if you still cannot decide how tostart.
Consider going wide before going deep. If you have insufficient insight into the prob-
lem to judge the hypotheses properties, you may want to progress iteratively in more detail.
That is, before you jump into a full-blown analysis of any one hypothesis, do a preliminary
test of various ones to see if you can gain any insight.
Enlist others. If you have a team of people, you might want to ask for help in establish-
ing the priority list, given that teams can be wiser than individuals. Surowiecki proposes that
four requirements must be met to form a wise crowd:diversity of opinion, independence,
decentralization, and aggregation.15
Diversity of opinion means that individuals should have private information about the
problem, even if it is partial; what matters above all is that they think differently.16
Independence is about ensuring that participants opinions are not anchored by others.
If you put your team in a room and ask them which hypothesis they think is the most likely,
whatever answer comes first is likely to influence all the following ones.17 Instead, capture
team members opinions individually and, perhaps, anonymously.
Decentralization allows people to specialize and use local knowledge.
Finally, aggregation means that you have a mechanism to collect and integrate the
answers.

11. (Klahr, Fay, & Dunbar, 1993)[p.114].

12. (Macpherson & Stanovich, 2007)[p.178].
13. (Anderson & Schum, 2005)[pp.4950].
14. (Hill,1965).
15. (Surowiecki,2005).
16. (Page,2008).
17. (Tversky & Kahneman,1974).

86 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 87

In Harrys case, our first hypothesis is related to a criminal act:the housekeeper is hold-
ing him hostage. Because finding a kidnapped dog is a lot different from finding an escaped
one, and because our friend John is convinced that the housekeeper is keeping Harry, we
decide to first analyze this hypothesis.

3. ANALYZE
Having stated your hypotheses and prioritized their analysis, you are ready to test them.
Criminal justice professors Ronald Clarke and John Eck advise that you should distance
yourself from your hypotheses:You should (1)clearly state your hypotheses, (2)not be
wedded to them, and (3) use data to objectively test them. Expect all hypotheses to be
altered or discarded once relevant data have been examined because no hypothesis is com-
pletely right. For this reason it is often best to test multiple conflicting hypotheses.18
When a datum or an item of information is associated to a hypothesis, it becomes evi-
dence;19 in the words of Dunbar and Klahr, hypothesis testing is then the process of evalu-
ating a proposition by collecting evidence regarding its truth.20
Gauchs PresuppositionsEvidenceLogic (PEL) model is useful to think about how
information and logic come together in arguments. Presuppositions are necessary beliefs for
any of the hypotheses to be true, but they are nondifferential regarding the credibilities of
the individual hypotheses. Evidence is data that is differential regarding the credibility of one
hypothesis over others. Logic combines presuppositions and evidence with valid reasoning
to reach a conclusion. Gauch notes that every scientific conclusion, if fully disclosed, in-
volves three kinds of premises, regarding presuppositions, evidence, and logic.21
In broad strokes, your analysis should integrate the steps from the evidence-based medi-
cine approach: formulate a clear question to test your hypothesis; identify the evidence
needed and the ways to gather it, including searching the literature, designing experiments,
etc.; critically appraise the evidence; and integrate your findings into the bigger picture.22

3.1. USE DEDUCT I ON, INDUCT I ON,

AND ABDUCT I ON
When working with hypotheses, we use deductive, inductive and abductivelogic.
Deduction applies a universal rule to a particular case to derive specific conclusions.
Aclassic example of deductive logic is:All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore,

18. (Clarke & Eck,2005).

19. (D. Schum, Tecuci, Boicu, & Marcu,2009).
20. (K. N.Dunbar & Klahr, 2012)[p.705].
21. (Gauch, 2003)[pp.124131,269]. In the rest of the book, Iam lumping presuppositions and evidence under the
term evidence.
22. See (Rosenberg & Donald, 1995)for more on evidence-based medicine.

Determine ActualCauses 87
88

... all men are

mortal
Reason:
Socrates is mortal and
because...
... Socrates is a
man

FIGURE4.6: Deductive inference applies a general rule to a particularcase.

Socrates is mortal. (See Figure 4.6 for a representation using argument mapping conven-
tions; more on that later in this chapter.)
If the premises of a deductive inference are true, so is its conclusion.23 There is, how-
ever, a price to pay for this certainty. Deduction cannot bring us more information than we
already know; it only makes it more explicit.24 Note also that deduction relies on univer-
sal rules, whichoutside of mathematics and logicare extremely rare. For instance, in
Figure 4.7 (a), the universal rule is that all dogs have four legs but, because of accidents or
genetic defects, some dogs have fewer. Despite this limitation, deductive logic is useful in
generating new hypotheses; for example, we owe to it the discovery of the planet Neptune.25
Induction relies on particular cases to generate a general rule that is likely true. Because the
sun has risen every day for a few billion years, it seems safe to assume that it will rise tomorrow.
The price we pay for accessing this new knowledge is the possibility of error:unlike deductive
inferences, inductive inferences based on true premises are not guaranteed to be true; rather,
they are probabilistic in nature. If the sun explodes later on today, it will not be rising tomorrow.
Induction is useful to evaluate the likelihood of a hypothesis based on the available evidence.26
An example of an incorrect induction is that of philosopher-trader Nassim Talebs turkey
before Thanksgiving, or the example of Russells chicken (the birds differ but the example
is the same). Observing that the farmer feeds it every day, this American turkey concludes
that the farmer is its friend and comes to expect that he will continue to feed it ad infinitum.
Unfortunately, it is proven wrong on a fateful Thanksgiving morning.27 One way to sidestep
this limitation of induction is to use triangulation:instead of relying on only one source of
information, one should find alternate and independent ways to assess whether ones con-
clusion is correct. For instance, our turkey might have looked for old turkeys on the farm, to
see if there were such as thing as an old turkey.
Abductionalso known as inference to the best explanation (IBE)is the formulation
of a hypothesis as a result of observing a surprising event,28 or being in a situation of having
evidence in search of hypotheses.29 We use abduction when we conclude that the theory

23. (D. A.Schum, 1994)[p.23].

24. (George & Bruce, 2008)[p.174].
25. (Reichenbach, 1973)[pp.100103].
26. (Tecuci, Schum, Boicu, Marcu, & Russell,2011).
27. (Taleb, 2007)[pp.4042].
28. (Gabbay & Woods, 2006; Kakas, Kowalski, & Toni, 1992; Pople,1973).
29. (Tecuci etal.,2011).

88 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 89

(a) Deduction: All dogs have 4

Ben is a dog
legs

Therefore
Ben has 4 legs

(b) Induction: Harry is a dog Eddie is a dog Ursus is a dog

and has 4 legs and has 4 legs and has 4 legs

Therefore
All dogs have 4
legs

(c) Abduction: All dogs have My cat has

4 legs 4 legs

Therefore
My cat is a dog

FIGURE4.7: Deduction, abduction, and induction combine elements in different ways to go from
premises to conclusions.

of evolution best explains species variations or that the fact that Napolon existed best ex-
plains the historical records about him.30 Philosopher Charles Peirce, who coined the term
abduction, saw it as the only form of reasoning to discover somethingnew.31
We already have used abduction extensively in developing our diagnosis map when observ-
ing that Harry was missing (evidence) and generating potential reasons why (hypothesis 1:the
housekeeper is holding him hostage; hypothesis 2:someone else is holding him hostage,etc.).
A major weakness of abduction is that, as is the case with induction, it is probabilis-
tic:it identifies possible truths that still may not be correct.32 Figure 4.7 (c)shows such an
example. Losing sight of the probabilistic nature of abduction can be problematical because
evidence usually is compatible with several hypotheses, and it is possible, and indeed not
unusual, to reach the wrong conclusion.
Use both forward-and backward-driven reasoning strategies. Using hypotheses to
guide ones analysis is known as the hypothetico-deductive approach or backward-driven
reasoning. Some have criticized this approach, pointing out its limitations.33 Although issue
maps are organized and naturally flow from the hypotheses to the data, this does not mean
that they constrain ones thinking in such a unidirectional flow. If new data appears that is
not consistent with any of the hypotheses listed, one should modify ones set of hypotheses
to incorporate that new information. Therefore, using an issue map is not equivalent to
limiting oneself to using a hypothetico-deductive approach. Rather, an effective analysis
combines backward-driven and forward/data-driven reasonings (see Figure 4.8).34

30. (Pardo & Allen,2008).

31. (Van Andel,1994).
32. (K. N.Dunbar & Klahr, 2012)[p.707].
33. See, for instance (Patel, Arocha, & Zhang,2012).
34. (Kell & Oliver, 2004). See also (D. A.Schum, 1994)[pp.139140].

Determine ActualCauses 89
FIGURE4.8: An ideal search will include both going from the hypotheses to the data and from the data to the hypotheses.
 91

Therefore your analysis will include three situations:35

One in which you go from observing a piece of evidence to relating it to a

hypothesis; that is, what hypothesis would explain these observations? This is
evidence in search of a hypothesis. It requires abductive thinking,
One in which you go from a having hypothesis to identifying which evidence is
needed to test it; that is, assuming that the hypothesis is true, what other things
should be observable? This is a hypothesis in search of evidence. It requires
deductive thinking,and
One in which you must evaluate the likelihood of a hypothesis based on the
available evidence; that is, what is the likelihood of the hypothesis based on
the available evidence? This is an evidential test of a hypothesis, which requires
inductive thinking.

One implication is that, as you conduct your analysis, you should also record the data
that you accidentally uncover and relate it to the appropriate hypotheses, or generate new
ones if needed.

3.2. IDENT IFY THEANALYS I S NEEDED

FOREACH HYPOTHES I S
To test your hypotheses, you should endeavor to stay clear of common diagnosis problems
misdiagnoses, pseudodiagnoses, and overdiagnoses. To help you do so, identify the data
and variables that can help you rule out competing hypotheses. Mapping out your hypoth-
eses might be useful.
Avoid diagnosis problems:pseudodiagnosing, overdiagnosing, and misdiagnos-
ing. Pseudodiagnosing is the tendency to seek diagnostically worthless information and alter
ones conclusion based on that information.36 Misdiagnosing is reaching the wrong diagno-
sis. This may be because of problems with evidence; for instance, if it is incomplete or inac-
curate. But misdiagnoses also may stem from problems with logic. In particular, a piece of
evidence is usually compatible with more than one hypothesis. Afarmer may be feeding his
turkeys because he really likes them or because he really likes eating them (or because he
sells them, etc.). Jumping to the first conclusion is unfortunate but, as Taleb exposes, all too
frequent as we extrapolate past events to predict future ones when we should not doso.37
Overdiagnosing is the diagnosis of a condition that will not cause any harm, such as the
diagnosis of a cancer that will not cause symptoms or death during the patients lifetime.38
This is different from misdiagnosing:here, the disease is real but treating it is not necessary
and may, in fact, causeharm.

35. (Tecuci etal., 2011), (Tecuci, Schum, Marcu, & Boicu,2014).

36. (Doherty, Mynatt, Tweney, & Schiavo,1979).
37. (Taleb, 2007)[p.41].
38. (Welch, 2015)[p.6977]. See also (Gawande, 2015), (R. B.Ness, 2012a) [p.38].

Determine ActualCauses 91
92

When it comes to data, more is not necessarily better, because gathering lots of peripheral
data is time consuming, may mask important data, and may lead you to acquire unwarranted
confidence.39 Also, lots of noncritical information may hide important but weak signals,40 or
significantly decrease the impact of diagnostic informationa phenomenon called dilution
effect.41 So, it is not necessarily enough to gather information about the subject; in general,
you will want to think carefully about what specific information you should be gathering.42
Putting it another way, if, as American zoologist Marston Bates said, research is the pro-
cess of going up alleys to see whether they are blind,43 it stands to reason that one should
want to sharpen ones vision (i.e., select the right data) to identify as quickly as possible after
stepping into an alley whether it isblind.
Academic physician Gilbert Welch has some advice for identifying whether a proposed
analysis should be carried out. He recommends that patients ask their doctors two ques-
tions if they suspect they are being excessively tested:What are we looking for? and If we
find what we are looking for, what will we do differently? If the data sought will not change
the course of action, then we should not seekit.44
Also note that the absence of suspected evidence can be as informative as the pres-
ence of unsuspected evidence:In the novel Silver Blaze, Sherlock Holmes infers that the
dog guarding the stable probably was familiar with the person who took the horse because
the dog did not bark.45 In Schums words, there seem to be three possibilities [to explain
missing evidence]:(1)The evidence does not exist, (2)you looked in the wrong place, or
(3)someone is concealingit.46
Focus on variables that rule out competing hypotheses. Ideally, your analysis should
aim at uncovering evidence that allows you to rule out competing hypotheses.47 Indeed,
such a method of exploration with a high systematic power is possibly why distinguished
scientists like Pasteur were able to move to a new field every two or three years and make
breakthrough discoveries, when specialistswho were much more knowledgeable about
these fields than he waswere hardly moving.48
To keep track of the analysis needed, the evidence gathered, and ones standing on a
set of competing hypotheses some in the Intelligence Community use an approach called
the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH).49 ACH consists of capturing in a matrix all
competing hypotheses, each in a column, and all existing items of evidence in rows. The
analyst then writes down if each item of evidence is consistent, inconsistent, or has an am-
biguous relationship with each hypothesis.

39. See (Oskamp, 1965), (Son & Kornell, 2010). See also (Bastardi & Shafir,1998).
40. (Pope & Josang, 2005), (Oliver, Bjoertomt, Greenwood, & Rothwell,2008).
41. (Nisbett, Zukier, & Lemley, 1981), (Arkes & Kajdasz, 2011)[p.157].
42. (Beyth-Marom & Fischhoff, 1983; Tweney, Doherty, & Kleiter,2010).
43. (Mitchell & Jolley, 2009)[p.72].
44. (Welch, 2015)[pp.114115].
45. (Anderson etal., 2005)[p.74].
46. (D. A.Schum, 1994)[p.33].
47. (Zimmerman, 2000)[p.111], (Klahr etal., 1993)[p.114].
48. (Platt,1964).
49. (Heuer, 1999; Heuer & Pherson, 2011), (George & Bruce, 2008)[p.185].

92 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 93
TABLE4.1: Hypotheses Maps are Made ofClaims, Reasons, Objections, and Rebuttals

Element Description Example

Claim: An idea that someone says is true, phrased as a full Hypotheses, reasons, objections, and rebuttals are all types of claims.
declarative sentence.

Reason: A set of claims that work together to provide evidence

... taking Harry
that another claim is true; in effect, to support that hostage is a way for
other claim. The hostage taker the hostage taker to
was willing to take Reason: make money
Harry hostage because ...
and
(i.e., he/she had a motive)
... the hostage taker
wants to make money

Objection: A set of claims that work together to provide evidence ... Harry doesnt have
that another claim is false; in effect, to oppose that any monetary value
other claim. Taking Harry
and
hostage is a way for Objection:
the hostage taker to but ... ... Harry must have a
make money monetary value for the
hostage taker to make
money

Rebuttal: An objection to an objection. ... the hostage taker

will use my friends
affection for Harry to
extort a ransom
... Harry must have a
and
monetary value for Rebuttal:
the hostage taker to however ... ... my friends affection
make money for Harry enables the
hostage taker to make
money despite Harry
having no monetary
value
94

Although some influential thinkers in that community have strongly advocated for
ACH,50 others point out that there is little evidence supporting its effectiveness.51
An alternative to ACH is argument/hypothesis mapping, a graphical representation of
how hypotheses and items of evidence relate that shares many characteristics with issue
mapping. Using argument mapping has been shown to improve students critical thinking
skills,52 so we will briefly introduce ithere.
Use argument/hypothesis mapping. As issue maps, argument maps are two-dimen-
sional representations of a position under analysis. The map starts with the position on the
left, lays out claims that support or oppose it in the middle and finishes on the right with
unsupported claims that are accepted with no further inquiry (or accepted as self evident).53
Table 4.1 introduces the four types of elements in an argument map: claims, reasons, objec-
tions, and rebuttals and Figure 4.9 shows how they interrelate in an argument.
Twardy reports that the most common error with argument mapping is to confuse mul-
tipremise reasons with independent ones.54 An independent reason supports a claim with-
out needing additional support, whereas a multipremise reason must have all of its premises
true to be valid. Figure 4.10 shows such an example of incorrect mapping:She was willing
to do it, by itself, does not yield that the housekeeper is holding Harry hostage. Instead, all
three premises (she was willing to do it, she was able to do it, and our body of evidence
does not refute this hypothesis) must be true for the claim to be supported.
Because all three conditions must be simultaneously true for us to accept the hypothesis,
they should be considered as a single multipremise reason, as Figure 4.11 illustrates. One
way to help formalize that a reason is a multipremise one is to add and between the vari-
ous premises:that is, for the argument to hold, the housekeeper must have been willing to
hold Harry hostage and must have been able to hold him hostage and our body of evidence

Because
Supporting
Reason
Because
Reason

Objection
But
Claim Because
Supporting
Reason
Objection
But

Rebuttal
However

FIGURE4.9: Hypothesis maps have four types of elements:claims, reasons, objections, and rebuttals.

50. (Heuer, 1999)[pp.95109], (Heuer & Pherson, 2011)[pp.160169].

51. (National Research Council, 2010)[p.19].
52. (Twardy, 2010). Alternative graphical tools to marshal evidence and relate it to hypotheses also include Wigmore
charts and (object-oriented) Bayesian networks; see (Hepler, Dawid, & Leucari,2007).
53. (Twardy,2010).
54. (Twardy,2010).

94 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 95

Multipremise reason incorrectly mapped as

independent ones:
None of the three
claims, taken
alone, supports
Reason: She was willing that the
because... to do it housekeeper is
holding Harry
Reason: She was able to hostage. Rather, all
The housekeeper is because... do it
holding Harry three must be
hostage true to provide
Our body of support.
Reason: evidence Therefore, they
because... does not refute are not
this hypothesis independent.

Independent
reasons have
different links.
These are not independent reasons and therefore,
should not be mapped as they are above.

FIGURE4.10: Premises that need others to support a claim are not independent.

does not refute this hypothesis. Also, to further differentiate multipremise reasons from
independent ones, note how in this graphical convention all the premises of a multipremise
reason stem from a single reason box (Figure 4.11), whereas independent reasons stem
from different reason boxes (Figure4.10).
In contrast, independent reasons do not need one another to support an argument; as
such, you can link them with and/or, as Figure 4.12 shows.55 Even if one of these is re-
jected, the claim is supported by the remaining one(s).

Multipremise reason:

To support an argument, all the premises of a multipremise reason

must be true. That is, they are necessary conditions.

She was willing

to do it

and To clarify, link

the various
She was able to premises of a
The housekeeper is do it multipremise
Reason:
holding Harry reason with
because...
hostage and and.

Our body of
evidence
does not refute
this hypothesis

FIGURE4.11: Multipremise reasons belong together.

55. See also Schums concept of convergent evidence (D. A.Schum, 1994)[pp.401409].

Determine ActualCauses 95
96

Independent reasons:

With independent reasons, even if one reason fails,

the argument still has support from the other(s). The yard has a
gate
Reason: and
because...
The gate was
open for some
time
Harry was able to
and/or
escape
The house has a
door
Reason: and
because...
The door was
open for some
time

To clarify that the reasons are independent, make them stem

from different reason boxes and link those with and/or.

FIGURE4.12: Independent reasons do not need the help of other elements.

In Figure 4.12, the two reasons that we propose to explain how Harry could escape is
that he could have done so through the yard or through the house. Even if one of these rea-
sons fails, the argument still has support from theother.
All simple arguments have at least two co-premises. Making your thinking explicit
means identifying those and mapping them. This can be useful to identify weaknesses. For
instance, consider mapping the classic inductive argument that all swans are white because
all swans we know are white (Figure 4.13).56

Daisy is a swan
and white

and

Hypothesis: All Reason: Danny is a swan

swans are white because... and white

and

Dante is a swan
and white

FIGURE4.13: Using a map may help you realize that just listing the cases of occurrences to support a
conclusion does not expose your entire argument.

56. See (King,2010).

96 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 97

Daisy is a swan
and white
and
All the swans I Reason: Danny is a swan
know are white because... and white

and
Hypothesis: All Reason:
swans are white because... Dante is a swan
and white
and
The swans I
know are
representative
of all swans

FIGURE4.14: Completing the induction in a map format might help identify where the weakness in your
thinkingis.

Putting the argument in a map format may help you realize that just listing cases cap-
tures only part of your reasoning. Completing the argument also requires assuming that the
swans you know are representative of all swans (Figure4.14).
This is key, because it is the second part of the argumentthe one that usually remains
implicitthat is the weak part of this induction.

3.3. WORK WI THEV IDENC E

Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people
to give them a 100percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately,
our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that
were not supported by the intelligence, Rockefeller said. In making the case for war,
the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was
unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people
were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.57

When working with evidence, you should consider its propertiesrelevance, credibil-
ity, and inferential forceand seek both supporting and opposing information. You also
should identify an appropriate standard of proof. Five major characteristics describe how
evidencetaken individually or as a bodyrelates to hypotheses:58

Evidence is incomplete, in that we never have watertight support of a hypothesis and

there is always room for doubt and uncertainty,59

57. (U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,2008).

58. (Tecuci etal., 2014), (Tecuci etal.,2011).
59. (Prakken, 2014), see also (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986)[p.171].

Determine ActualCauses 97
98

Evidence is frequently inconclusive, in that a single piece of evidence usually is

compatible with more than one hypothesis,
Evidence is frequently ambiguous, that is, it is unclear what the evidence is actually
telling,
Abody of evidence frequently has some level of dissonance, with items supporting
some hypotheses and others opposing them,and
The sources from which the evidence originates are not perfectly credible; rather
there are gradations of believability or credibility.

Evaluate relevance, credibility, and inferential force. An item of evidence has three
principal characteristics:relevance, credibility, and inferential force or weight.60
A relevant item of evidence is one that makes a hypothesis more or less probable.61 Using
a hypothesis map helps you evaluate the relevance of each item of evidence to each hypoth-
esis:items should be linked on the map to all hypotheses (there often is more than one) to
which they are relevant.
The credibility of an item of evidence measures how much it should be believed. Unless
an item of evidence is perfectly credible, you should not assume that having evidence that
an event occurred means that the event did actually occur.62 Indeed, a neighbor saying that
he saw Harry alone in front of the house does not mean that Harry was alone in front of the
house. Maybe the neighbor was mistakenperhaps he saw another dogor maybe he is
lyingtous.
To evaluate the credibility of evidence, Anderson et al. recommend differentiating tan-
gible evidencewhich includes documents, objects, and measurementsfrom testimonial
evidence. Table 4.2 summarizes some of the key credibility attributes of evidence.
In a map, you assess the credibility of an item of evidence by questioning it and its sup-
porting claims until you reach a basic level where you accept unsupported claims. Figure
4.15 shows how we reached that level in Harrys case, hearing the friends assertion that the
yard gate does not lock, we could choose to go check it for ourselves. Instead, we decide to
accept it as credible with no further inquiry.
The third characteristic of evidence is its inferential (or probative) force, which is a
measure of how strong the evidence is in supporting or opposing the claim under
investigation.63
Establishing the relevance, credibility, and inferential force requires both creative and
critical reasoning.64

60. See, for instance (Anderson etal., 2005; D.A. Schum, 2009), (Boicu, Tecuci, & Schum,2008).
61. (Anderson etal., 2005)[p.62].
62. (Anderson etal., 2005)[pp.6466].
63. (Anderson etal., 2005)[p.71].
64. (Boicu etal.,2008).

98 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 99

TABLE 4.2: Credibility Attributes of Evidencea

Type of Evidence Credibility Attributes

Tangible Authenticityis the item of evidence what it purports to be? Deliberate
evidence deceptions or mistakes affect authenticity.
Accuracy/sensitivityif a sensing device was used to obtain the evidence,
did it provide the degree of resolution needed?
Reliabilityis the process of generating the item of evidence repeatable,
dependable, or consistent?

Testimonial Basis for assertionhow did the witness acquire the data? Is the witness
evidence appropriately qualified to comment?
Veracityis the witness being truthful and sincere? Are there no conflicts
of interest?
Objectivityis the witnesss belief based on evidence rather than on
expectations or desires? Is the belief free from any significant dispute among
relevant experts?
Observational sensitivitydid the witness have adequate sensors (vision,
hearing, touch, smell, and taste) under the circumstances (e.g., alcohol
consumption, poorly lit scene)?
a
Integrating elements of (Anderson et al., 2005) [pp. 64 67], (Twardy, 2010). See also
(D. A. Schum, 2009) [p. 213] for a list of grounds for testimonial credibility impeachment
and (D. A. Schum & Morris, 2007) for questions that can help to analyze how much
credence we should give to specific testimonial evidence.

Decision:
Synthesis: Accepted
as credible with no
further inquiry

Decision:
Synthesis: Accepted
as self evident

Decision:
Synthesis: Accepted
as credible with no
further inquiry

Decision:
Synthesis: Accepted
as credible with no
further inquiry

Decision:
Synthesis: Accepted
as self evident

FIGURE4.15:Test the credibility of evidence until you reach a level where you feel comfortable leaving
the claim unsupported.
100

TABLE4.3: You
Can Express theRelationship betweena Hypothesis and Evidence
inVariousWays
Supporting evidence is consistent with your think it more
Favoring substantiates hypothesis, probable.
Confirming supports leading you to, fail to rejectit.
Confirmatory corroborates potentially consider itvalid.
confirms provisionally
validates acceptit.
asserts (accept it).
(verifies)
(proves)

Then, your is consistent with the

hypothesis complies evidence.
coheres

Opposing evidence opposes your think it more

Contrary undermines hypothesis, improbable.
Countering rebuts leading you to, reject it.
Negative refutes potentially,
Refuting contradicts
Disfavoring challenges
Disconfirming counters
Disconfirmatory falsifies
Incompatible disconfirms
Inconsistent

Then, your is inconsistent with the

hypothesis evidence.

Seek both supporting and opposing evidence. Assuming that an item of evidence is
relevant to a hypothesis, it is going to help support it or oppose it. (See Table 4.3 for ways to
express the relationship between a hypothesis and evidence.65)
There is widespread agreement that, when testing hypotheses, people tend to resort
to using a positive test strategytrying to find evidence compatible with the hypothesis,
which Klayman and Ha called +Htestsrather than Htests, or looking for incompatible
evidence.66 Klayman and Ha note that this default mode has advantages because it rules
out false positives, which is usually desirable when one has to live with ones mistakes.67
Also, in some cases, this approach might be the only one that can lead to a correct conclu-
sion. They also warn, however, that this approach can be inappropriate in other settings
because it might lead to the wrong conclusion. This has been shown by cognitive psychol-
ogist Wason through an experiment that has come to be known as the Wason 246 task.68

65. The terms in parentheses should not be used or, if they are, they should be used with extreme care because, techni-
cally, there is no such thing as verifying or accepting a hypothesis. See discussion below formore.
66. (Klayman & Ha, 1987, 1989; Mahoney & DeMonbreun, 1977; Snyder & Swann, 1978; Wason, 1960)(K. N.Dunbar &
Klahr, 2012)[p.705].
67. (Klayman & Ha,1987).
68. (Wason, 1960). For a discussion, see (Michael E Gorman & Gorman,1984).

100 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 101

The 246 task consists of asking subjects to guess a rule that the experimenter has in
mind that applies to sets of three numbers. The experimenter then gives the subjects the
three numbers 246, telling them that the sequence complies with the rule, and asks them
to write down sets of three numbers with reasons for their choice. Then, the experimenter
tells the subjects whether their sequences conform to the rule, and if not, invites them to
try again. Once they are confident that they have guessed the rule, the subjects announceit.
Only six of the original 29 subjects gave the correct rule at their first announcement.
Subjects tended to form hypotheses that were too specific. They also tended to only propose
sequences that were consistent with their hypotheses. For instance, if a subject supposed
that numbers were increasing by two, they would propose confirmatory sequences46
8 or 101214as opposed to using a disconfirmatory approach, proposing, say, 234
or 7545. By the way, the rule was ascending numbers.
The scientific approach to hypothesis testing, following Francis Bacons (and, later,
Karl Poppers) idea, is to look for falsifying evidence.69 This makes sense because countless
verifications can be countered by a single falsification, which is why, technically, one does
not accept a hypothesis, at best, one only accepts it provisionally.70 In other words, there
are only conclusive falsifications, no conclusive verifications71 or, in Talebs words, You
know what is wrong with a lot more confidence than you know what is right.72 So Platt and
others recommend that, when identifying evidence, one should keep in mind the infor-
mation needed to refute ones hypothesis.73 According to this view, one should vigorously
attack each hypothesis, and only then selectfavoring the hypothesis that best resisted the
attacks. This is called induction by elimination.74
The problem is that our natural tendency to seek confirmation of our hypotheses gets
in the way of seeking disconfirmation. This is true even with trained scientists who perform
no better than nonscientists, including ministers.75
Luckily, there are ways to continue to seek disconfirmation:Cowley and Byrne observe
that people readily seek falsification of someone elses hypothesis76 and that experts are
better than novices at seeking falsification.77 So, in your project, perhaps you can outsource
the design of the testing of your hypotheses to an otherwise-noninvolved colleague with the
specific instruction that the tests should aim at disconfirmation. Similarly, you might seek
the help of subject matter experts in the design of thetests.
Seeking disconfirmation has other issues as well, among them that the falsification
itself may be erroneous.78 Indeed, just as we should not discard the fact that the earths

69. (Popper, 2002). See also (D. A.Schum, 1994)[p.28].

70. In this book, however, we use accept instead of fail to reject as an attempt to improve clarity.
71. (Klayman & Ha, 1987)[p.214]. See also (Oreskes, Shrader-Frechette, & Belitz, 1994), (McIntyre,1998).
72. (Taleb,2007).
73. (Platt,1964).
74. (Anderson etal., 2005)[p.257].
75. (Mahoney & DeMonbreun,1977).
76. (Cowley & Byrne,2005).
77. (Cowley & Byrne,2004).
78. (Tweney, Doherty, & Mynatt, 1981)[pp.8182].

Determine ActualCauses 101

102

gravitational field has an average magnitude of 9.81 m/s2 the moment a students test finds
otherwise,79 it is advisable to question the value of each item of evidence, especially in com-
plex problems where conflicting evidence is common. To that end, keeping a healthy dose
of skepticism when facing new evidence by implicitly asking Must Ibelieve this? can be
useful.80
Various factorsincluding whether feedback is available, whether the resolution
is carried out by a single individual or a group, whether confirmation is sought before
disconfirmationseem to influence the effectiveness of a confirmatory versus a disconfir-
matory approach.81
So, having identified that both supporting and opposing evidence may have benefits,
a prudent general approach seems to look for both types. Tweney etal. suggest starting by
looking for confirmatory evidence so as to generate good hypotheses before looking for dis-
confirmatory evidence.82 You should then characterize the value of each hypothesis in terms
of how much it agrees with the overall body of evidence.83 In Thagards words, An explana-
tory hypothesis is accepted if it coheres better overall than its competitors.84 Having done
so, capture your conclusion in your issuemap.
Note that you might gather evidence as a result of actively looking for it or happening
upon it. Although we try to structure our approach and concentrate on the information
that we need, at times we accidentally uncover unexpected information. The key is to rec-
ognize when such information is valuableas the next section explainsand ensure that
you consider it. As an illustration, in Harrys case, we went to talk to a neighbor to see if he
knew where Harry was. He did not, but he did volunteer a critical item of evidence: He had
seen Harry alone in front of the house. This item is critical because of its diagnosticity: The
chances of it appearing are significantly different depending on the hypothesis.85 Indeed, if
we believe our neighbor that Harry was alone in front of the house, his being held hostage
implies that he somehow got to the street, where he was first alone and then taken hostage
(H1 or H2) as opposed to his having escaped (H3, H4, or H5).

3.4. EMBRAC EA ND FAC I L I TATES ERENDIP I TY

Although we may fool ourselves into thinking that human progress is the result of con-
certed strategies and careful executions, history tells another story, namely, that chance is

79. (National Research Council, 2011b) [p.132].

80. See (E. Dawson, Gilovich, & Regan,2002).
81. (Michael E.Gorman, Gorman, Latta, & Cunningham, 1984), (Mynatt, Doherty, & Tweney, 1978), (Tweney etal.,1980).
82. (Tweney etal., 1980)[pp.110111].
83. See (Mynatt etal., 1978)[p.405]. Looking for both supporting and opposing evidence shares some characteristics
with an adversarial processsuch as the Anglo-American judicial system. The system consists of having adversarial parties
present their evidence, analyzing this evidence through cross-examination, and deciding on what the truth is (or as close
an approximation as can be) (Schauer, 2009)[p.208]. See also (D. Schum etal., 2009), (D. A.Schum, 1994)[pp.5558].
84. (P. Thagard,1989).
85. (Zlotnick,1972).

102 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 103

of paramount importance. Serendipitythe appreciation of the chance encounter of some-

thing valuable while looking for something elseaccounts for a sizable chunk of discover-
ies in all disciplines. Indeed, the discoveries of pulsars, X-rays, coffee, gravity, radioactivity,
Post-it notes, painting styles, penicillin, America, Plutothe list goes onare all credited
to happy accidents.86
Note that serendipity requires not just stumbling upon an unexpected result but also
recognizing its value. For instance, take Alexander Flemings discovery of penicillin:mold
growing on his petri dishes had killed the bacteria that he was studying. Others had expe-
rienced this problem before, but Fleming was the first to recognize the opportunity and
capitalize on it.87 So it is essential to synthesize these chance encounters into insightwhat
some call being sagacious88which is an example of a correct abduction.
Van Andel identified 17 serendipity patterns, including using analogies (Lannec in-
venting the stethoscope after observing kids scratching pins on one end of a piece of wood
and listening to the effect on the other end) or capitalizing on apparent errors (the 3M
Company inventing the removable Post-it note after discovering that seemingly bad glue
opened the door to a temporarily permanent adhesive).89
Serendipity, then, requires understanding the so what? of ones observation and being
willing to brand as victories those events that might not seem victorious. It, therefore,
requires a particular state of mind, perhaps best summarized by Picassos Je ne cherche pas,
je trouve.90

4.DECIDE
Having conducted your analysis, you should now decide which of your hypothesis/ses
explain(s) why your problem exists in the first place. To help you do so, lets talk about
biases, Bayesian inference, and Occamsrazor.

4.4. AVO IDB I ASES

Tversky and Kahneman in the 1970s proposed that people use heuristicsmental tactics
to cope with the complexities of estimating probabilities. Although these heuristics can be
useful, they also can lead to systematic biases.91
When testing hypotheses, one needs to guard against various biases. One of those is
belief preservation, the tendency we have to favor evidence that supports our point of view

86. (Kell & Oliver, 2004; R. B. Ness, 2012b; Van Andel, 1994), (Fine & Deegan, 1996; Vale, Delfino, & Vale, 2005),
(Cannon,1940).
87. (R. Ness,2013).
88. (Andr, Teevan, & Dumais,2009).
89. (Van Andel,1994).
90. (Van Andel, 1994). Equally appropriate is Pasteurs Dans les champs de lobservation le hazard ne favorise que les esprits
prpars which translates to 0, see (Cannon,1940).
91. (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974), (Tversky & Kahneman,1973).

Determine ActualCauses 103

104

over evidence that opposes it.92 [V]an Gelder describes how belief preservation manifests
itself:We look for evidence that supports our beliefs and disregard or do not look for evi-
dence that opposes them. We give more credit to evidence that supports our beliefs; and we
continue in our beliefs despite overwhelming contrary evidence.93
As we have seen in the previous section, hypothesis testing requires a willingness to at-
tempt to falsify hypotheses.94 Correcting belief preservation requires you to actively moni-
tor if you are at risk for it and take mitigating action such as looking for contrary evidence,
giving such evidence extra credit, and nurturing the ability to change your mind and admit
that you are wrong.
Done properly, this approach has a ludic component to it. Davis notes that if investiga-
tors test multiple hypotheses prevailing in their field with disconfirmatory tests rather than
simply defend their own views, science becomes more a game than a war.95 Recognizing
ones errors is also inherently educational; Bazerman and Moore point out that we learn
the most about how we accomplish our goals not by observing successes, but by taking ac-
count of failures.96
Working with several hypotheses helps us acquire this flexibility: by explicitly listing
all hypotheses, you already know that you are wrong on some. Therefore, instead of having
to deal with whether you are wrong, the issue becomes identifying where you are wrong,
which might be a little more ego friendly.
To minimize confirmation bias, it helps to analyze all aspects of hypotheses, not just the
ones that might result in the outcome you are hoping for, and document all. You may want
to do this in your issue map using check marks and crosses to record which arguments you
accept as valid and which you reject (as we have done earlier in Figure4.15).

4.5. USE BAYES I AN INFERENC E

When the facts change, Ichange my opinion. What do you do,sir?

John MaynardKeynes

Bayesian inference can help you reduce biases by providing a framework to update
your beliefs as you uncover new evidence.97 Specifically, it allows you to revise your origi-
nal estimate of how likely a hypothesis is (called your prior probability or prior) in light
of a new item of evidence to get a posterior probability or posterior of the hypothesis:The
posterior equals your prior times the conditional probability of the evidence given the hy-
pothesis divided by the probability of the evidence. In mathematical form, assuming that

92. (Lord, Ross, & Lepper,1979).

93. (Tim van Gelder,2005).
94. (Wason,1960).
95. (Davis,2006).
96. (Bazerman & Moore, 2008)[p.179].
97. (Tenenbaum, Kemp, Griffiths, & Goodman,2011).

104 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 105

n hypotheses may be true, the posterior probability of hypothesis hi after collecting item
of evidencedis:

P(d hi )
P(hi d) = P(hi )
P(d)

P(d hi )
P(hi d) = P(hi ) n

P(d h )P(h )i i
i=1

Equation 1:Bayes theorem.

Bayesian inference can be a powerful tool in a solvers toolkit because people usually do
not integrate new information into their judgment as much as they should.98 So lets intro-
duce it with a simple case and discuss some of its benefits and limitations when applied to
practicalcases.
Understand the basics of Bayesian inference. Imagine a dark urn in front of you
with four balls in it. You cannot see the color of the balls but know that two hypotheses are
equally likely:99

hblue:The urn contains three blue balls and onewhite

hwhite:The urn contains three white balls and oneblue

Your task is to evaluate whether hblue is true with no more than 1 chance in 1,000 of being
wrong. To do so, you are allowed to pick one ball at a time, note its color, update your think-
ing, and replace it in the urn without looking at the other balls. How should you do this?
One way to proceed is to use Bayess theorem. Adapted to this case, itreads:

P(d hblue )
P(hblue d) = P(hblue )
P(d hblue ) P(hblue ) + P(d hwhite ) P(hwhite )

Equation 2:Bayess theorem applied to the urn problem.

Now we need to replace each of these terms with their quantities. Assume that your first
draw gets you a white ball (i.e., d=drawn a whiteball).
We know that the hypotheses are equally likely, therefore, the priors are equal:P(hblue)=
P(hwhite)=0.5.

98. See, for instance (Phillips & Edwards,1966).

99. This example is adapted from (Gauch, 2003)[pp.226232].

Determine ActualCauses 105

106

Because in hblue only one of the four balls is white, then P(d|hblue)=P(drawing a white
ball|hblue)=0.25 (read the probability of drawing a white ball given hblue) and, conversely,
P(d|hwhite)=0.75.
Therefore,
0.25
P(hblue white) = 0.5 = 0.25
0.25 0.5 + 0.75 0.5

Assume that, on your second pick, you draw a blue ball. The posterior probability of
your first test becomes the prior for this one and you can compute the updated posterior:

0.75
P(hblue blue) = 0.25 = 0.5
0.75 0.25 + 0.25 0.75

Repeating the experiment, you get something that looks like Table4.4.
Understand the benefits and limitations of Bayesian inference. In this example, rely-
ing on Bayesian inference helps avoid unnecessary experiments. Consider solving the problem
above with an intuitive approach in lieu of a Bayesian one by, say, asking a group of experts
to conclude on the correct hypothesis with a 99.9% level of confidence considering that, out
of 15 draws, four yielded a white ball and 11 yielded a blue one. It is reasonable to think that
convincing such a group would take more than 15 experiments. Yet, we have achieved the
required level of confidence with just 15 draws, so there is no need for further draws. Here,
generating new data is inexpensive so the downside of overcollection is minimal. But that

TABLE4.4:
Evolution ofthe Probability ofHaving Three Blue Balls inthe Urn
asExperiments Proceed

Observation P(d|hblue) P(hblue) P(d|hwhite) P(hwhite) P(hblue|d)

Experiment 1 White 0.250 0.500 0.750 0.500 0.250
2 Blue 0.750 0.250 0.250 0.750 0.500
3 White 0.250 0.500 0.750 0.500 0.250
4 Blue 0.750 0.250 0.250 0.750 0.500
5 Blue 0.750 0.500 0.250 0.500 0.750
6 Blue 0.750 0.750 0.250 0.250 0.900
7 Blue 0.750 0.900 0.250 0.100 0.964
8 Blue 0.750 0.964 0.250 0.036 0.988
9 Blue 0.750 0.988 0.250 0.012 0.996
10 White 0.250 0.996 0.750 0.004 0.988
11 Blue 0.750 0.988 0.250 0.012 0.996
12 White 0.250 0.996 0.750 0.004 0.988
13 Blue 0.750 0.988 0.250 0.012 0.996
14 Blue 0.750 0.9959 0.250 0.004 0.9986
15 Blue 0.750 0.9986 0.250 0.001 0.9995

106 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 107

hhostage: Harry is
missing because he is
being held hostage
Why is Harry
the dog
missing? hnon-hostage: Harry is
missing because of a
reason other than being
held hostage.

FIGURE4.16:You can formulate Harrys case considering only two hypotheses.

is not the case in many real-life situations; in those, you would want to know the minimum
data necessary to help you reach a given level of confidence.
Bayesian inference requires quantifying judgment. Quantifying judgment is not too com-
plicated when dealing with a laboratory case such as picking balls out of an urn. It becomes
more complicated, however, when dealing with problems where information is limited. To
illustrate, lets go back to Harry. Suppose that you want to identify whether he is being held
hostage, because that will dictate whether you should call the police, and you think that this
should be your foremost consideration. You might then consider two hypotheses, as Figure
4.16 shows, and you may want to test hhostage, the hypothesis that Harry is being held hostage
against hnon-hostage, the hypothesis that he is missing for whatever other reason. Applied to this
situation, Bayess theorem becomes:

P(d hhostage )
P(hhostage d) = P(hhostage ) ,
P(d hhostage ) P(hhostage ) + P(d hnon -hostage ) P(hnon -hostage )

where you now need to identify numerical values for all quantities on the right-hand-side
of the equation.
Based on prior informationsuch as your past experience, what you have heard from
neighbors, what you have read in the local press or in peer-reviewed journalsyou might
decide that cases of pets held hostage are much rarer than those of pets missing for other rea-
sons, leading you to set your priors as P(hhostage)=0.1 and P(hnon-hostage)=0.9. (Or you might
decide that these priors are inappropriate and should be 0.01 vs. 0.99 or 0.5 vs. 0.5; this
illustrates how incomplete data introduces subjectivity and may produce disagreements.100)
Next, consider a first datum of information that you think should be accounted
for:d1:Harry went missing on the very day that your friend fired his housekeeper, a seem-
ingly unstable and upset person who blamed the dog for losing her job and threatened re-
taliation. This comes in the context of Harry having not gone missing for months. Highly
emotional, your friend insists that this just cannot be a coincidence. You might decide that
P(d1|hhostage)=0.9 and P(d1|hnon-hostage)=0.1. Applying Bayess theorem yields a first posterior
for hhostage:P(hhostage|d1)=0.5.

100. How to set priors in a Bayesian approach is a source of controversy; see (D. A.Schum, 1994)[pp.4951] for a
discussion. See also (Prakken, 2014), (Puga, Krzywinski, & Altman, 2015), (Cousins, 1995), and (Gustafson, Edwards,
Phillips, & Slack, 1969)for related considerations.

Determine ActualCauses 107

108

TABLE4.5:
Evolution ofthe Probability ofHarry Being Held Hostage Considering
New Evidence

Observation P(d|hhostage) P(hhostage) P(d|hnon-hostage) P(hnon-hostage) P(hhostage|d)

d1 Disappears on day 0.90 0.10 0.10 0.90 0.50
housekeeper is fired
d2 Seen alone 0.05 0.50 0.95 0.50 0.05

Next, consider as d2 the fact that a neighbor saw Harry, alone, in front of the house. You
might reason that it is highly unlikely that Harry first somehow got out of the house/yard
(so that he could be seen alone) and that someone then took him hostage. Indeed, once he
was out of the house, it seems much more likely that he just kept on going as opposed to
being spotted and picked up by someone who was willing and able to take him hostage. So
you might decide that P(d2|hhostage)=0.05 and P(d2|hnon-hostage)=0.95. The new posterior is
now P(hhostage|d2)=0.05 (see Table4.5).
Reviewing the other items of information, you might decide that their diagnosticity is
poor, that is, P(di|hhostage)P(di|hnon-hostage). Therefore, their inclusion in the analysis would
not provide additional insight and, so, you leave themout.
Based on the evidence considered, the probability that Harry was taken hostage (by
the housekeeper or anyone else) is 5% while the probability that he is missing for another
reason is 95%. You might decide that this is a sufficiently conclusive diagnostic:you can
reasonably assume that he is not held hostage and that you should look for him accordingly.
As noted above, a major difficulty resides in assigning priors and likelihood for real-life
cases. Zoltnick observes that supporters of the intuitive approach point out that people are
likely to disagree on what those should be but also observes that these disagreements exist
whether one quantifies them or not,101 just as we do not all have the same understanding of
what very likely or very unlikely mean. Unequivocal values for these concepts are desir-
able.102 Some fieldssuch as weather forecastingassign numerical values to their predic-
tions and the National Research Council, for one, is exhorting the Intelligence Community
to transition to similarly explicit scales.103
For its part, the Bayesian approach has been shown to be more desirable than the intui-
tive approach in studying intelligence problems, at least in some settings.104 Fisk proposes
a Bayesian approach for assembling and updating the opinions of several peopleshown
in Table 4.6that can be readily adapted to other settings. Imagine that you are interested
in having five analysts quantify the probability that a war between two countries will occur
within four weeks of today (dayt):

101. (Zlotnick, 1972). Fenton etal. make a similar point (Fenton, Neil, & Lagnado, 2012)[p.9].
102. (Kent,1964).
103. (National Research Council, 2011b) [pp.8485]. Note that this difficulty often can be considerably reduced by
considering ranges of probabilities, rather than single values, see (Fenton etal., 2012)[pp.78], (Fenton & Neil,2010).
104. (Fisk,1972).

108 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 109

TABLE 4.6: AProcess for a Bayesian Approach in Evaluating the Probability of War
within Four Weeks(a)

Step Task
1 On day t, ask the five analysts to estimate the prior; i.e., the probability p(hwar) that war will
occur within four weeks.
2 On day t + 7, ask each analyst to list all the events that occurred within the previous week
that influenced their opinion.
3 From these separate lists, generate a master list of events that contains all the elements
that the analysts mentioned ensuring that they are approximately independent from one
another.
4 Ask each analyst to estimate the probability that each of these events actually happened.
5 Ask each analyst to estimate p(di|hwar) and p(di|hnon-war) for each event di on the master list.
6 Use Bayes theorem to calculate the posterior probabilities of each analyst.
7 On day t + 14, repeat steps 26 using the posteriors that you have just calculated as the
priors of that new iteration.
8 On day t + 21 (or on whichever day(s) that you want to re-evaluate the probability), repeat
step 7.

After Fisk, C. E. (1972). The Sino-Soviet border dispute: A comparison of the conventional and
(a)

Bayesian methods for intelligence warning. Studies in Intelligence, 16(2), 5362.

4.6. USE O C CAMSRA Z OR

The parsimony principle, also known as Occams razor (or Ockhams razor) may be sum-
marized in a simple maxim:all other things being equal, favor the simplest hypothesis that
explains your observations.105
Occams razor may be seen as part of a broader set of properties aimed at favoring the
better hypothesis. But better can be hard to define. Pardo and Allen suggest that [a]n
explanation is, other things being equal, better to the extent that it is consistent, simpler,
explains more and different types of facts (consilience), better accords with background
beliefs (coherence), is less ad hoc, and so on.106
Occams razor is a central component of the scientific method and has led to countless
major breakthroughs.107 And yet, although it is a good guide, Occams razor is not a uni-
versal rule, so you should not follow it blindly. For instance, Galileo applied it incorrectly
to postulate that all undisturbed motion was circular.108 And to use a more modern-day
example, most of the time, when the warning light monitoring your car engines oil level is
unlit, it means that there is sufficient oil. Applying Occams razor in this case leads you to
conclude that the reason the light is unlit is because you have enough oil; trusting that the
light functions properly saves you from manually checking your oil level. But, it may also
happen that the light malfunctions and fails to light up despite a low level of oil. In this case,

105. See, for instance (Blumer, Ehrenfeucht, Haussler, & Warmuth, 1987), (Gauch, 2003)[p.269].
106. (Pardo & Allen, 2008)[p.230]. Thagard defines best as satisfying consilience, simplicity, and analogy (P. R.Thagard,
1978)[p.89].
107. (Gauch, 2003)[p.269], (McIntyre,1998).
108. (Gauch, 2003)[p.274].

Determine ActualCauses 109

110

trusting Occams razor might cost you your engine. Here, as in many other places in the res-
olution process, there is no hard rule to apply except that of following your best judgment.

4.7. DRAW C ONCLUS I ONS

Summarizing the key concepts of this chapter, and following the precepts of Platt and
others,109 you should refrain as much as possible from having a favorite explanation. Instead,
you should state the potential answers to your key question as hypotheses and treat them
as such along your analysis. An implication is that you should not feel discouraged if your
analysis shoots down your favorite hypotheses but, rather, embrace this as progress towards
solving your problem.

I have not failed 700 times. Ihave not failed once. Ihave succeeded in proving that
those 700 ways will not work. When Ihave eliminated the ways that will not work,
Iwill find the way that willwork.
ThomasEdison

As you uncover new items of evidence, continuously integrate them into your map,
relating them to hypotheses. Then step back and periodically ask yourself whether your
diagnostic is sufficiently precise or whether you need additional information. If the latter,
identify which additional information is needed. This stepping back process is critical be-
cause failure to do so may induce you to continue to diagnose when you are ready to move
on into finding solutions. For instance, the scientific community has long been character-
ized by policymakers and the media as divided and disagreeing on climate change. Yet,
when historian of science Oreskes stepped back and analyzed 928 papers published in re-
ferred journals, she found that this representation was incorrect; there was an overwhelm-
ing consensus in the scientific community that anthropogenic climate change is real.110 If
you identify that you have a sufficiently good diagnostic of your problem, capture your
conclusions and then move on to finding solutions.

5. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?
Starting with our set of hypotheses, we decide to interview key people to understand better
what happened that afternoon. Table 4.7 shows the information that we gathered.
Examining this information, we uncover a discrepancy:Given that Harry barks loudly
whenever the lawn crew comes to the house and given that the crew came between 1 and
2p.m., but did not see Harry, he had to be missing before 1p.m. This is inconsistent with
him still being in front of the house at 2:20p.m. for the neighbor to see him there. (Indeed,

109. (Platt, 1964), (Chamberlin,1965).

110. (Oreskes,2004).

110 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 111

TABLE4.7: Gathering Information about Harrys Disappearance

Action Information
Talk with friend: Friend was away from noon to4p.m.
Harry can go between house andyard
Harry has not escaped in months, since friend fixed thegate
Harry has nocollar
The backyard gate was closed when friend cameback
There are no holes in or under thefence
The backyard gate does notlock
Harry cannot jump over the fence orgate
Friend fired housekeeper that morning because of poor performance
Housekeeper was upset and blamed Harry for shedding. Threatened
retaliation
Harry escapes whenever possible, follows scents, and ends uplost
Whenever the lawn crew is there, Harry barks loudly enough for the
crew to hear
Talk with neighbor: Saw a police car in front of the house at 2:20p.m.
Saw Harry out on the street by himself at ~2:20p.m.
Talk with lawn crew Crew came today between 1 and2p.m.
supervisor: Crew knows Harry but did not see him today

FIGURE4.17: We capture the evidence, our thought process, and our synthesis in the diagnosismaps.
112

Decision: Reject
Hypothesis 1: Harry is Synthesis: For this hypothesis to hold, Harry
missing because the would have had first to escape and then the
housekeeper is holding housekeeper would have had to take him
him hostage hostage. That seems too unlikely, therefore, we
discard it at this time

Decision: Reject
Hypothesis 2: Harry is Synthesis: As hypothesis 1, this scenario
missing because someone requires first for Harry to escape before, Although it is still
other than the second, a hostage taker pick him up and
housekeeper is holding unclear whether
take him hostage. This seems even more
him hostage complicated than hypothesis I, therefore, Harry is roaming
we discard it at this time or not, I have
established that he
Decision: Accept
is not held
WHY is Harry the Synthesis: All necessary and sufficient
Hypothesis 3: Harry is hostage. I decide
dog missing? missing because someone conditions are met and the body of evidence
does not contradict this hypothesis. Therefore, that this is
is keeping him to enable
us to get him back we accept it as a possibility at this time. Not sufficiently
only that, butbased on historical datawe diagnostic to move
believe it has a high likelihood
to searching
Hypothesis 4: Harry is Decision: Accept solutions
missing because someone Synthesis: All necessary and sufficient
is keeping him to neither conditions are met and the body of evidence
enable us to nor prevent does not contradict this hypothesis. Therefore,
us from getting him back we accept it as a possibility at this time
Hypothesis 5: Harry is Decision: Accept
missing because he is
roaming or stuck (but Synthesis: All necessary and sufficient
without the active conditions are met and the body of evidence
participation of anyone; i.e. does not contradict this hypothesis. Therefore,
no one is keeping him) we accept it as a possibility at this time

FIGURE4.18: Periodically review your diagnostic to decide whether it is sufficiently conclusive. If it is, no
need to push it further, instead move on to finding solutions.

given that Harry follows scents, it is unlikely that he would stay in front of the house for
over one hour.) So either the lawn crew manager is mistaken or lying or the neighbor is
mistaken or lying. We decide that it is more likely for the lawn crew manager to be mistaken
or lying, and we accept that the neighbors sighting of Harry is convincing evidence that he
was indeed in front of the house alone around 2:20p.m.
So now, any hypothesis where Harry is held hostage must assume that Harry first got
out of the house, was seen sufficiently far from anyone for the neighbor to think that he
was alone, and then been taken hostage. This seems far more complicated than the alterna-
tive:Harry escaped.
Therefore, applying Occams razor, we conclude that Harry must have escaped, and we
capture the evidence, our thought process, and our synthesis in the map (see Figure4.17).
Although we do not know which of the remaining three hypotheses is the correct one
(see Figure 4.18), we can conclude that we should search for Harry as we would for a lost
dog, not one that is held hostage. As such, there is no point involving the police in our
search or accusing the housekeeper. We decide that this is a sufficient level of diagnosticity
and move to finding a solution to get himback.
The process we will follow to find a solution has some similarities with our diagnostic
approach:We will develop an overriding key question, capture it and its context in a card,
use an issue map to identify and classify all possible answers, and analyze those possible
answers before drawing conclusions. Chapter5 explains how to do the first three of these
activities.

112 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 113

NOTES
Finite element analysis:Thanks to Javier Arjona for guidance in optimizing the FE
mesh of thebeam.
Pareto principle: The 80/20 is indicative but distributions can be much more concen-
trated. For instance, 1% of patients in Camden, New Jersey, accounted for over 30% of the
citys medical costs.111 Similarly, 16 composers produced 50% of the classical music cur-
rently recorded and performed.112 Also, out of the 30,000 tech startups that emerge every
year in Silicon Valley, venture capitalist Mike Maples estimates that only 10 will end up
representing 97% of the total value of them and one will amount to as much value as all the
others combined.113
Going wide before going deep: This is analogous to breadth-first search in artificial
intelligence.114
Data and evidence: (Mislevy, 1994) cites Schum in differentiating data from evi-
dence:A datum becomes evidence in some analytic problem when its relevance to one or
more hypotheses being considered is established. Evidence is relevant on some hypoth-
esis [conjecture] if it either increases or decreases the likeliness of the hypothesis. Without
hypotheses, the relevance of no datum could be established.
Data, information, useful knowledge, and wisdom. There is a hierarchy among data,
information, knowledge, and wisdom. Think of a team of codebreakers, such as the British
who monitored German encoded radio traffic during World WarII:115

Data is the enciphered radio traffic. It is the product of observation;

Information is what the data means when deciphered; it is data that is processed to
be useful;
Useful knowledge is what that information tells us about the enemys intentions; it is
the application of data and information;and
Wisdom refers to using that knowledge to decide whattodo.

Limitations of ACH: See van Gelders summary of issues about the approach.116
Maps and more maps: Argument mapping can be traced as far back as Toulmin (1958)
and Wigmore (1913).117 To my knowledge, Tim van Gelder coined the term hypothesis
mapping.
Grading the credibility of evidence: Not all evidence should have the same credi-
bility. Even experts are known to, at times, have poor inferences and confide in them too

111. (Gawande,2011).
112. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006)[p.87].
113. (Lemann,2015).
114. (Russell, Norvig, Canny, Malik, & Edwards, 1995)[p.74].
115. See (Ringle, 1990), (Rowley,2007).
116. (T.van Gelder, 2008). See also (National Research Council, 2010)[pp.1821].
117. (Rowe & Reed,2010).

Determine ActualCauses 113

114

much.118 The medical community, for instance, grades the results of randomized, controlled
trials higher than expert opinion.119 Clinicians have attempted to grade the value of evi-
dence based on as objective factors as possible.120
On belief preservation, see also (Bazerman & Moore, 2008)[pp.2930], people nat-
urally tend to seek information that confirms their expectations and hypotheses, even when
disconfirming or falsifying information is more useful.
More on confirmation bias. People tend to discredit or reinterpret information coun-
ter to a hypothesis they hold.121 This works in concert with motivated reasoning:using dif-
ferent standards of evidence to evaluate propositions they wish were true as opposed to
those they wish were false; that is, when evaluating an agreeable proposition, people tend
to ask, Can Ibelieve this? whereas when evaluating a threatening proposition, we tend
to ask, Must Ibelieve this?122 Strong commitment to a hypothesis may reinforce confir-
mation bias.123 See (K. N. Dunbar & Klahr, 2012) [pp. 750751] for ways to overcome
confirmationbias.
Elasticity in asymmetrical skepticism: Ask etal. corroborated that subjects evaluated
the reliability of contradicting evidence lower than that of supporting evidence.124 They also
noted that the asymmetry depended on the type of evidence:The reliability of witness evi-
dence, for instance, varied widely depending on whether it supported a subjects preconcep-
tion or opposed it; that asymmetry was not as pronounced for DNA evidence, for instance.
Dealing with situation where no amount of opposing evidence seems to be enough.
When involving someone who has a strongly held position on a situation, Neustadt and
May offer to ask Alexanders question: What new data would bring you to change your
position?125 This forces people to state up front what would constitute highly diagnostic
opposing evidence, thereby reducing the chance of it being distorted or dismissed if it does
surface.
Establishing a causal relationship: In epidemiology, the Hill criterianamed after
Sir Bradford Hillcan help identify whether a relation of cause and effect exists between
two entities. The criteria are: 1. Strength, 2. Consistency, 3. Specificity, 4. Temporality,
5.Biological gradient, 6.Plausibility, 7.Coherence, 8.Experiment, and 9.Analogy.126

118. (National Research Council, 2011a) [p.34], (Arkes & Kajdasz, 2011)[p.147], (Spellman, 2011)[p.118], (N.
V.Dawson etal.,1993).
119. (Giluk & Rynes-Weller, 2012) [p. 150], (Philips et al.), (Barends, ten Have, & Huisman, 2012) [pp. 3536],
(Shekelle, Woolf, Eccles, & Grimshaw,1999).
120. (Thompson etal., 2012)[p.818], (Schunemann etal., 2006)[p.612].
121. (Klayman & Ha, 1987)[p.211]. See also [p.117] of (Koriat, Lichtenstein, & Fischhoff, 1980)and (Edwards &
Smith,1996).
122. (E. Dawson etal., 2002). Thagard makes a similar observation calling the first mechanism a default pathway and the
second a reflective pathway (P. Thagard, 2005). See also (Nickerson, 1998)[p.187].
123. (Church,1991).
124. (Ask, Rebelius, & Granhag,2008).
125. See (Neustadt & May, 1986)[pp.152156] and (Fischhoff & Chauvin, 2011)[p.165].
126. (Hill,1965).

114 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 115

Idiographic versus nomothetic hypotheses: An idiographic hypothesis applies to a

particular case whereas a nomothetic one applies to a class of cases.127 Maxfield and Babbie
note that criteria for assessing an idiographic explanation are:(1)how credible and believ-
able it is and (2)whether rival hypotheses were seriously considered and found wanting.128
Gathering evidence: Hoffman etal. have reviewed various ways to elicit knowledge
from experts.129
Relevance of evidence: Federal Rule of Evidence FRE 401 stipulates that Evidence
is relevant if:(a)it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence; and (b)the fact is of consequence in determining the action.130
Usefulness of contradictory evidence: Koriat et al.: People who are interested in
properly assessing how much they know should work harder in recruiting and weighing
evidence. However, that extra effort is likely to be of little avail unless it is directed toward
recruiting contradicting reasons.131 Also, Arkes and Kajdasz note that having to generate a
contrary reason significantly improves the match between ones confidence and accuracy.132
Looking for consistent evidence is not necessarily bad. A hypothesis (or story)
needs to have sufficient support to be considered.133 Doing so while keeping an open mind
may lead you to formulate other, correct hypotheses.134
Embracing untestable hypotheses: Dunbar observes that, in some cases, untestable
hypotheses are required:Charles Darwin could never have written the Origin of Species had
he believed that untestable hypotheses were anathema, or forbidden. Even today, much of
the Darwinian theory remains essentially untestable. We accept Darwinism not on the basis
of logic, but because an overwhelming number of observations can be most satisfactorily
explained by that theory.135
Influence of feedback on search strategy: Gorman etal. recommend aiming at dis-
confirming when feedback is unavailable; when it is, combine both.136
Data-driven and hypothesis-driven reasoning strategies: Patel etal. report that phy-
sicians with ample experience in a clinical setting use forward/data-driven reasoning while
resorting to backward/hypothesis-driven reasoning when dealing with unfamiliar cases,
pointing out that, in the latter, the physicians lack the knowledge necessary to recognize
patterns.137
Serendipity and carefully designed research: the two are not mutually exclusive.
Van Andel remarks that they complement and even reinforce each other. In practice

127. (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012)[p.55].

128. (Maxfield & Babbie, 2012)[p.58].
129. (Hoffman, Shadbolt, Burton, & Klein,1995).
130. (Cornell University Law School).
131. (Koriat etal.,1980).
132. (Arkes & Kajdasz, 2011)[p.150].
133. (Bex & Verheij,2012).
134. (National Research Council, 2011b) [p.129].
135. (M. Dunbar,1980).
136. (Michael E.Gorman etal.,1984).
137. (Patel etal.,2012).

Determine ActualCauses 115

116

it is not by design or by serendipity, but rather by design and by serendipity, and/or vice
versa.138
Diagnosticity of evidence: Anderson etal. note that the likelihood ratio of an item of
evidencethe factor that, multiplied by a hypothesiss prior yields its posteriorintegrates
both the credibility and relevance ingredients of the evidence.139

138. (Van Andel,1994).

139. (Anderson etal.,2005).

116 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 117

CHAPTER5

IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
SOLUTIONS

H aving identified the root cause(s) of our problem, we can now identify
potential solutions. The process mimics what we have done in the diagnostic:first write a
solution definition card before developing an issue map. The map shows alternative ways to
answer the key question, introduces a formal set of solution hypotheses, helps structure the
analysis of these hypotheses and capture their results, and paves the way to deciding which
one(s) we will implement (Chapter6).

1. WRITE A SOLUTION DEFINITION CARD

As in the diagnostic phase, it is essential to focus on solving the right problem and to build
a shared understanding across the project team. To do so, it helps to write a solution defini-
tion card or how card; see Figure5.1.
Your how card does not have to be very different from your why card. In fact, your
situation and complication may only change slightly. The one major difference between a
how and a why card is the key question. To form it, decide whether you want to integrate
results of the diagnostic in your key question. Figure 5.2 shows that, in Harrys case, we
have integrated them, pointing out that no one is preventing us from recovering him. But
asking, How can we get Harry the dog back? would be equally acceptable. Integrating
the results of the diagnostic reduces the size of the solution space:We are not looking
for all the ways to get a missing dog back, only the ways corresponding to non-hostage
situations.
 Situation: The information that is necessary and sufficient to specify which part of the
universe you are considering. Only the necessary information. This
information should be positive (i.e., there is no problem at this stage) and
undisputed (i.e., people reasonably familiar with the setting agree with it)

Complication: The one problem in that part of the universe; that is, the unique need for change
(potentially illustrated by one or several of its symptoms/consequences)

Solution key The one solution question that you want to answer. It
question: 1. Is phrased as how... ?
2. Addresses an appropriate topic
3. Has an appropriate scope
4. Has an appropriate phrasing

Decision The person(s) who have formal authority to direct your project/
makers: authorize your recommendation

Other The person(s) who do not have formal authority but who can influence the
stakeholders: project

Goals and Budget, deadlines, type of documents, quantitative objectives, etc.

logistics:

Voluntarily left- The actions under your control that you choose not to take
out answers:
(things that we
could do but
decide not to):

FIGURE5.1: Describe your solution problem in a howcard.

Situation: My friend John has a dogHarrywho went missing a few hours ago

Complication: Although we initially suspected Harry might have been kidnapped, we now believe
that no one is preventing us from recovering him

Solution key How can we get Harry the dog back, knowing that no one is preventing us
question: from recovering him?

Decision John and his wife

makers:

Other Johns neighbors and other people whom we enlisted to partake in the search
stakeholders:

Goals and Identify all possible solutions within 4 hours;

logistics: Pick and implement subset within 12 hours;
Bring Harry back within 24 hours
Voluntarily left- Ask neighbors to invest significant time in helping us locate Harry
out answers:

FIGURE5.2: In Harrys case, we choose to include our conclusion of the diagnostic in our howcard.
 119

2. DEVELOP A SOLUTIONMAP
Although it is tempting to jump to the first solution that comes to mind, there is value in
considering alternatives. To illustrate, consider the following example1: The guests of a
hotel complain about having to wait too long for elevators. To address this, the manager
consults an engineer, who recommends installing another elevator. Unimpressed by the
price tag of the solution, the manager seeks a second opinion, that of a psychologist, who
recommends giving the guests something to do while they wait for the elevator; for ex-
ample, by installing mirrors or televisions or providing magazines. Upon implementing
the psychologists recommendation, the complaints stop. Verberne notes that the ability to
think in divergent patterns is what prevents us from jumping to the obviousand usually
most expensivesolution.2
Applied to finding solutions for our problem, this refusal to satisfice right away means
that before settling on whatever potential solution occurs to us, we should first consider at
least several, as Figure 5.3shows.
Does it sound like too much work for a limited payoff? Well, decision theorist Hammond
and his colleagues disagree, pointing out that first, you can never choose an alternative that
you have not considered and, second, irrespective of how many alternatives you have identi-
fied, your choice can only be as good as the best of those. Thus, they conclude, the payoff
from seeking good, new, creative alternatives can be extremely high.3
If this sounds familiar, it is because this process of refusing to close too early on an ob-
vious solution is similar to the one that we have used for formulating our diagnosis (see
Chapters2 and 3). The good news is that solution maps use the same four major rules as

1. Identify what
2. Choose a
the real
solution
problem is

1. Identify what 2. Identify various 3. Analyze each

potential 4. Choose a
the real potential
solution solution
problem is solutions

FIGURE5.3: Solution finding should start with the conscious decision to first generate options before
reviewing them and selecting one, as opposed to selecting whichever option happens to come to mind
naturally.

1. From (Verberne,1997).
2. Three decades earlier, Rusell Ackoff also reported a similar problem in an office building and solved it in the same way;
see (Mason & Mitroff, 1981)[p.25].
3. ( John S.Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 2002)[p.45].

Identify Potential Solutions 119

120

Diagnostic maps answer

1. ... consistently answer a why key question
a single type of question Solution maps answer a
how key question

2. ... progress from the

key question to the
Issue maps... conclusions

3. ... have mutually

exclusive and collectively
exhaustive (MECE)
branches

4. ... are insightful

FIGURE5.4: Solution maps use the same four major rules as diagnosticones.

diagnostic ones (see Figure 5.4), so we can build on what we discussed earlier and use our
issue maps as a way to engage our System 2 thinking. This chapter also introduces other
ideas that can help the development of both types ofmaps.

2.1. LOOK FORALTERNAT I VES,

NOT PRO C ESSES
There are two ways to answer a how question. The first is to describe a process:a sequence
of steps to answer the question in one particular manner. The second is to describe various
alternatives or channels, each of which could potentially answer the question.
Use solution maps for the latter, to lay out alternatives to solve a problem, not to de-
scribe the sequence of steps to answer the key question in a specific way (see Figure 5.5).
This may be challenging:In my experience, people tend to be more comfortable describing
processes than identifying alternatives. So chances are that sticking to identifying alterna-
tives will take a conscious effort.
Validate the independence of branches. One way to help you ensure that you are stay-
ing away from describing processes in your map is to periodically ensure that branches are
independent. Because solution maps spell out alternatives, each branch of the map must
be independent from the others; that is, any one branch does not need the help of another
to answer the question. In particular, you never have a time relation between any two, that
is, you never have to follow one branch before following another. That means that the ele-
ments in your map all are potential answers to your key question. In Figure 5.5 (b), using a
rocket or swimming, for instance, both independently answer How can Igo from NYC
to London? These solutions do not need any other elements to answer the question. The
same is not true of buy a ticket, for instance, in Figure 5.5(a).
Ignore desirability and feasibility for now. At this stage, we are not interested in the
desirability and feasibility of elements. As long as an element is a potential logical answer
to the key question (and it is not part of the voluntarily-left-out-answers section of your

120 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 121

Process:
1. Elect a means of
(a) transportation

How can I go from 2. Buy a ticket

NYC to London? 3. Go to the port/
airport
4. Board

Channels/
alternatives:
(b) Using a plane
Using a helicopter
Flying
Using a balloon

How can I go from Using a rocket

NYC to London?
Traveling Using a raft
on the
Traveling surface Swimming
by sea
Using a
submarine

FIGURE5.5: Use solution maps to identify alternatives, not to spell out a sequential process.

how card), it should be in your map. Negotiation expert Roger Fisher and his colleagues
observe that this requires concerted effort, noting that inventing options does not come
naturally.4

2.2. PROGRESS FROMTHE KEY QUEST I ON

TOTHE C ONCLUS I ONS
As with diagnostic maps, you should start your solutions map with the key question, iden-
tify various possible answers, summarize those in a set of formal hypotheses, test these hy-
potheses, and record your conclusions.
Make branches diverge. As decision trees, until they reach the set of hypotheses, issue
maps only have burst nodes (also called splitting paths); that is, each element has at least two
children. If you get to a situation as that of Figure 5.6 where you want to break several issues
in the same way, you will still need to develop one distinct branch for each issue.
This is because, once they diverge, elements are distinct and may evolve in different
ways. Part of the value of maps is to expose these differences.
To avoid repeating large groups of elements it may be useful to put a recurring branch
into a box, give that box a number, and refer to that number in other parts of the map that
use the same structure (see Figure 5.6[b]).

4. (Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991)[p.57].

Identify Potential Solutions 121

122

(a) Because the

information on
new employees
isnt up to date
Maps do not converge (until
Because the the set of hypotheses).
Why isnt our Own
information on employees
employee
current
database up to Outsourced
employees isnt
date? employees
up to date

Because the
information
on former
employees
isnt up to date
1
(b) Own
Because the
information on employees
new employees Outsourced
isnt up to date employees

Why isnt our Because the Own

employee information on employees To accommodate the
database up to current
date? same breakdown in
employees isnt Outsourced various branches, you can
up to date employees repeat it or put it in a box
and refer to the box.
Because the
information
on former See 1
employees
isnt up to date

FIGURE 5.6: Until they reach the set of hypotheses, maps only have burst nodes, that is, they always
expand when moving to the right. To avoid repeating large branches, you can label them and refer to the
label.

Eliminate instances where a node has a single child. When an element only has one
child, you are having one of two problems:either you are not being collectively exhaustive
that is, you have forgotten other possibilitiesor the group {element + child} is redundant.
Either way, modify the group:in the first instance by adding the missing children and in the
second by modifying the element, the child, orboth.
Further control the number of children: too many is impractical, but two is not nec-
essarily ideal either. Perhaps the simplest way to break down elements is to separate them
into two children. But maps based on such dichotomous branchings take longer to reach a
given level of detail than maps that have nodes with more children. So the price of simplicity
is a bigger map, which can make it difficult to focus on important parts. Therefore, do not au-
tomatically settle for a binary approach. On the other hand, when an element has more than,
say, five children, it can become complicated to test the MECEness of the group. You should
balance these considerations when deciding how to break down a specific node; based on
experience, systems that have two to five nodes are usually the most appropriate.

122 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 123

Posting
announcements on
light posts

Posting
announcements on
Posting
trees The states are the
announcements on
objects in the values that the
Posting variable can take,
street
announcements on that is, the actual
parked cars objects.

Posting
announcements in
people's mailboxes

The variable is what is

changing; in this case, the
objects in the street where
we can post announcements.

FIGURE5.7:To help ensure that nodes add value, identify the variable that is changing in eachnode.

Identify the value of each node. Each node should add clear value, otherwise you are
just adding structure for structures sake, and soon your map will be immense but not nec-
essarily useful. To help you add value with each node, make a conscious effort to name the
variable that is changing in that node (see Figure 5.7). The children are then the various
states that the variable cantake.
Do not force branches to have the same depth if not needed. Some branches of your
map will be sufficiently explicit after only a couple of steps. Others may require a dozen steps
or perhaps more. These differences are fine. Do not feel obliged to use the same number of
steps in all branches just for consistency. Instead, make sure that each branch develops in an
insightful manner to sufficient explicitness (see next point).
Stop drilling when the map is sufficiently explicit. The considerations given to stop-
ping your map that we introduced in Chapter3 are also valid for solution maps:You should
develop your map while doing so creates an explicitness that adds value but not develop it
further. Consider searching for Harry (see Figure 5.8). Starting from our house, we could
be searching in four directions.
Is there value in specifying those directions? Well, experts say that dogs tend to travel
into the oncoming wind so, indeed, highlighting this as a good direction seems to make
sense, because it would give us a concrete direction in which to start our search. As for
whether we should specify the other three directions, it really is a judgment call, but if you
cannot find a good-enough reason, you should decide that this element is sufficiently ex-
plicit as it is and moveon.
In general, higher explicitness is better. Apart from helping you organize your thinking
in a MECE and insightful way, much of the value of issue maps comes from identifying
concrete, precise answers. In the early stages of a map, most of what you do is organizing.
But the right side of a map is where you get to work on the second value generator:identify-
ing specific solutions. Do not satisfice here and stop your thinking at a level where answers

Identify Potential Solutions 123

124

If further refining the idea is likely to bring

value, then it is worth doing so. In this case,
pointing out the one direction where the dog
is likely to have traveled makes sense.

Checking first in the

direction of the oncoming
wind, where dogs tend to
Checking whether we travel (source: Houston
can see him SPCA)

Checking first in one of

the other three directions

If additional detail is not likely to

bring significant value, do not add a
node. For instance, there is little
value in specifying what the three
other directions are, so we stop
here.

FIGURE5.8:To identify whether adding a node is warranted, first reflect on the value of addingit.

remain generic or vague. Instead, force yourself to go deeper in detail than you think is
necessary, because even if you will not apply most of the ideas you generate, they can trigger
additional usefulideas.

2.3. BE MOREMEC E
Ensuring that your map is a MECE classification of all potential answers to the key ques-
tion has as much value in solution maps as in diagnostic maps. This implies that you should
include all potential answers to the key question that are logically valid, irrespective of their
desirability, feasibility, or any other property. Chapter3 presented some basic ideas to help
you think in MECE ways. Here are a few more suggestions.
Be more MECE by following the holding hands rule. The holding hands rule that we
discussed for introductions (see Chapter 2) also applies to issue maps; that is, the contents
in the element and its children should not appear in only one box.5 In Figure 5.9, we ensure
holding hands compliance by varying nothing but the type of action that Harry can take to
come back.
Be more ME by differentiating causes from consequences. Alist of items cannot be
MECE if the items are not of the same kind. Acorollary is that the items in a list cannot be
the causesor the consequencesof items in the samelist.

5. See (Rider & Thomason, 2010)[p.115].

124 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 125

Enabling him to smell

the house/us

Enabling him to
Enabling him to hear
come back on his the house/us
own
Enabling him to see
the house/us

FIGURE5.9: An element and its children should hold hands.

Be more CE by choosing the right idea-generation macro activity. Many of us are

not good at divergent thinking. We limit our own creativity by falling into one of several
obstructive patterns, either self-limitingrelying on what we know, replicating past experi-
ences, feeling uncomfortable with uncertaintyor letting ourselves be influenced by others,
that is, groupthinking. So we need help to overcome our natural limitations. One way is to
set up specific idea-generation dynamics. Brainstorming, brainwriting, and using the Delphi
method are three popular techniques that provide increasingly more privacy to contributors.6
Brainstorm. Group brainstorming consists of having various people share ideas to
solve a problem:put several people in a room, ask them to think out loud about a subject,
and capture the results.
To brainstorm effectively, you need a few participants, say, four to six; a moderator; a
quiet and comfortable place; and 30 minutes or so.7 You also need to ensure that everyone
abides by four rules:8

Forbid criticism. Do not worry about whether an idea might or might not work
brainstorming is about idea generation, not idea evaluation;
Encourage strange/dumb/wild ideas. Participants should not feel constrained in
anyway;
Shoot for quantity of ideas, not quality;and
Encourage the use of one idea to generate others (cognitive stimulation, i.e., build on
ideas).

Brainstorming is widely popular; it is used in many organizations, including the design

and innovation consultancy IDEO, a firm famous for having developed many innovative
products, including the first Apple mouse.9 Its popularity is explicable by the fact that, in
some settings, group brainstorming can be as productive as, or even more productive than in-
dividuals working independently.10 There is considerable empirical evidence, however, that

6. See also (Prime Ministers Strategy Unit, 2004)[pp.107111], (Linsey etal., 2011)for additionalideas.
7. (Geschka, Schaude, & Schlicksupp,1976).
8. (Osborn, 1953)[pp.297308].
9. On IDEO, see (T. Brown, 2008), (Kelley, 2001)[pp.5366].
10. (Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996), (Kavadias & Sommer,2009).

Identify Potential Solutions 125

126

group brainstorming usually underperforms compared to the same number of people brain-
storming individually, both in the quantity and quality of ideas generated.11 The remainder of
this section discusses the issues associated with brainstorming and ways to overcomethem.
Northwestern Universitys Leigh Thompson points out four major problems that limit
the effectiveness of brainstorming:12

Social loafing is a tendency for people who are part of a group to not work as hard
as they would individually. Loafing is accentuated when people feel that their
contributions will not be discernible from those of others;13
Conforming is adapting ones ideas for fear of negative evaluations, which drives
contributions toward conservativeness and similarity;14
Production blocking is losing ones train of thought as a result of having to listen to
others ideas;15and
Downward norm setting is having the performance of group members converge
toward that of the least-performing individuals in thegroup.

Despite these limitations, group brainstorming remains widely used, and researchers
and practitioners have proposed ways to ward off its problems. Tom Kelley, a partner at
IDEO, proposes some ideas to improve the effectiveness of brainstorming:start with an
open-ended question but a clear definition of the problem, number the ideas to motivate
the participants (e.g., shoot for 100 ideas per hour), and use Post-its or other props to show
progress and facilitate your future categorizing.16
Try to assemble a team with functional diversity, given that more heterogeneous teams
are likely to be more creative.17 Ancona and Caldwell found that teams with more heteroge-
neous members spoke to more people outside the team, in various departments of organi-
zations, which was related with higher ratings for innovation by management.18 They also
found value in tenure diversity.
Ex-CIA analyst Morgan Jones stresses the importance of receptivity:There is no point
in having your team create many ideas if they are going to shoot them down right there and
then.19 So you must avoid critiques, both negative and positive. As a moderator, do not offer
encouragements when you hear ideas; for example, This is good or I like that, might
motivate one contributor but may demotivate all those whom you did not praise when they

11. See, for instance (B. Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991), (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987), (Vroom, Grant, & Cotton, 1969),
(Paulus, Larey, & Ortega,1995).
12. (L. Thompson, 2003); see also (L. L.Thompson, 2011)[pp.212215].
13. (Bettenhausen,1991).
14. (Kohn & Smith,2011).
15. (Diehl & Stroebe,1987).
16. (Kelley, 2001) [pp. 5658].
17. (Kavadias & Sommer, 2009), (L. Thompson, 2003), (Hong & Page, 2001). See also (National Research Council,
2014)[p.64].
18. (Ancona & Caldwell,1992).
19. ( Jones, 1998)[pp.7279].

126 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 127

spoke. When someone contributes an idea, repeat it as you write it down, just write it down,
or ask for clarification if needed.
Do not spend too much time on any single idea:describe only their broad strokes and
leave the peripheral details for later. The goal is to produce many ideas in a short time to
raise the probability that a creative (defined as novel and useful) one will be among them.20
You will always have time in other sessions to drill into eachidea.
Oxley etal. found that a highly trained facilitator can enable a brainstorming group to out-
perform individual brainstorming. They suggested that this may be due to the experience of
the facilitators, the extent of their training recognizing ideas and keeping the group focused
on generating ideas, and/or their focus on reintroducing ideas that were not fully discussed.21
You might want to jumpstart the session with a warm-up, such as asking the group to
name 10 types of trees. Another way to start the session is to have participants speak one
word at a time:Have people pair up (or not), start with once upon a time and use a loose
subject (e.g., Imoved to London). This requires participants to let go of their own idea and
build on those of others.22
Because brainstorming has been found to underperform in many situations, Diehl and
Stroebe suggest that it might be more effective to ask subjects first to develop their ideas
in individual sessions and next have these ideas discussed and evaluated in a group ses-
sion. The task of the group would then consist of evaluating, rather than producing, ideas.23
Thompson agrees, pointing out that individuals are better than groups at divergent think-
ing, but groups are better at convergent thinking.24 Perhaps one way to move in that direc-
tion is to use brainwriting instead of brainstorming.
Brainwrite. Brainwriting is similar to brainstorming in that one gathers a few people
in a room, defines a common problem for the group, and asks every member to contribute
ideas to solve it. Brainwriting reduces the interactions between team members, however,
by having them think individually, write down their ideas silently, and only then share their
ideas with others.
Start by giving each team member a piece of paper and a limited time to come up with
several ideas, say three ideas in five minutes. At the end of the allocated time ask everyone
to give their pieces of paper to the person sitting to their right and ask everyone to consider
the ideas of their colleague as a trigger for developing their own ideas. Repeat as needed.
Apply the brainstorming rules in brainwriting:capture everything that is potentially a
logically correct answer to the problem, without considering its practicality, and encourage
people to think of unique ideas. When you share results, do not judge positively or nega-
tively. Frequently remind the group that you are aiming for quantity, not quality.
Compared with brainstorming, brainwriting reduces the impact of production block-
ing because people do not have to wait their turn to capture ideas. It also may reduce the
impact of anchoring, because people are not set to look at the problem under someone elses

20. (Geschka etal., 1976)[p.49].

21. (Oxley etal., 1996)[p.644].
22. See also the inventing proverbs exercise in improvisation (Madson, 2005)[pp.3233].
23. (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987)[p.508].
24. (L. Thompson,2003).

Identify Potential Solutions 127

128

perspective,25 and of conformitywriting is more anonymous than speaking.26 Athird ad-

vantage of this approach is that it may be more effective when engaging larger groups and it
is time-effective as everyone works simultaneously.
There is empirical evidence that, at least in some settings, brainwriting results in greater
productivity than individual production.27
Brainwriting shares some of brainstormings advantages as it allows participants to build
on others ideas rather quickly. But it also shares some of brainstormings drawbacks, be-
cause contributions are not fully anonymous and some participants still may feel intimi-
dated. If this is a concern, using the Delphi method may be advantageous.
Use the Delphi method. The Delphi method offers more privacy still: Participants
never meet face to face; instead they write down individually their proposed solutions for
the problem as well as their rationales. The facilitator then sends these responses to all par-
ticipants as well as any data that has been requested.28 Next, the participants revise their so-
lutions, taking into account the views of their colleagues. The process continues iteratively
until convergence or until there is no further progress.
This method works best when engaging five to twenty participants with heterogenous
expertise.29 Keeping the participants anonymous helps reduce the convergence of points
of view toward that of the most renowned expert in the group. The technique is also useful
when participants are in different physical locations or are so conflictual with one another
that going through a meeting is impractical.30 Alimitation of the method is the time it takes
to process the answers, especially with a largegroup.
Idea-generation dynamics in a group setting trade the privacy of participants for the
ability to build on other members ideas quickly. Identify which characteristic is more im-
portant to you in your particular situation and select the optimal technique. Note that the
methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive; in fact, alternating solitary and group ses-
sions may be desirable.31
Be more CE by choosing the right idea-generation micro activity. Within brain-
storming (group or nominal), brainwriting, and the Delphi method, one can improve idea
generation by applying any one of several approaches.
Use analogies. As we have discussed in Chapter3, using a familiar problem can be a
powerful way to explore ways to solve an unfamiliar one. Psychologists Smith and Ward
point out that the most useful analogies typically are the ones where similarities are in the
concepts of the situations rather than their superficial characteristics.32

25. ( John S.Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa,1998).

26. (Heslin, 2009), (L. Thompson, 2003)[p.104]. See also (L. L.Thompson, 2011)[pp.205206] for the superiority of
having team members working independently on divergent thinkingtasks.
27. (Paulus & Yang, 2000)[p.84].
28. (Dalkey & Helmer,1963).
29. (Rowe & Wright,2001).
30. (L. Thompson, 2003)[p.104].
31. (V. R.Brown & Paulus,2002).
32. (Smith & Ward, 2012)[p.469].

128 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 129

Sometimes, using analogies can equate to stealing ideas from other settings. This can
be challenging to do, in part because of the not-invented-here syndrome, a tendency to reject
ideas from outsiders.33 Problem solving in medicine is not the same as in military or so the
thinking goes. Of course, there are obvious differences and these differences call for special-
ized training. But there are also common denominators. Indeed, problem solving in medicine
can be the same as in the military. Such an instance is Dunckers radiation problem: Imagine
having to treat the tumor in the stomach of a patient without destroying neighboring healthy
tissue. Any rays of sufficient intensity would destroy both types of tissue. Dunker identified
various alternative solutionssend rays through the esophagus, use chemical injections to
desensitize the healthy tissues, expose the tumor with an operation, etc.and organized
them in a search-tree representation (which is the earliest ancestor of issue maps that I have
seen). He then selected one of these solutions: From various points around the patient,
simultaneously project rays of low intensity that all converge at the tumor to amount to a ray
of sufficient intensity to destroy the tumor.34 When confronted with this problem, subjects
who first read a military analogy (attacking a fortress in a countryside protected by mine-
fields that let small groups of men through but not an entire army) are significantly better
at finding the solution,35 thereby supporting the idea that keeping an open mind is valuable.
This borrowing from other fields is helped by the advent of open innovation, a paradigm
shift where entities invite both internal and external ideas to solve their problems. Open in-
novation is facilitated by websites such as InnoCentive, a crowdsourcing company that links
organizations with problems to people who win cash prizes for solving them. Other efforts
include initiatives to push people to look beyond the boundaries of their disciplines, such
as the Pumps & Pipes symposium that aims at fostering the exchange of ideas among the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the medical industry, and energy
companies.36
Challenge assumptions. How do you fit four elephants in a car? Two in the front, two
in the back. Psychologist Edward de Bono contends that challenging assumptions is a criti-
cal component of lateral thinking.37 Hammond etal. agree:Before you accept constraints,
separate the real constraints from the assumed ones (which represent a mental state of mind
rather than reality).38
Grab a piece of paper, a pen, and a stopwatch. You have three minutes to think about
everything you can do using a bottle. We are going for quantity:the highest number wins.
Ready?Go.
If you are like most of my students, you probably came up with 10 to 25 answers. You
have thought about the obvious (fluid container, circle-drawing guide) and the somewhat
less obvious (flower pot, weapon, hammer, magnifier, art object). But have you taken
your thinking sufficiently far? Can you feed yourself with a bottle (yes, if it is made of, say,

33. (Katz & Allen,1982).

34. (Duncker & Lees, 1945), (Bassok & Novick, 2012)[p.414].
35. (Gick & Holyoak,1980).
36. (Orlando,2015).
37. (De Bono, 1970)[p.105].
38. ( John S.Hammond etal., 2002)[p.49].

Identify Potential Solutions 129

130

chocolate), can you make a boat with a bottle (absolutely, if it is big enough), can you use it
as clothes (yes, if you break down its plastic into pellets, these can be used as textile)? In fact,
you can make furniture out of a bottle, you can make it a deity, you can make it a currency,
you can make it an underwater breathing apparatus, you can even fly (if it is large and light
enough, just fill it with helium or hot air).
So, if there are so many things we can do with a bottle, why can Ionly come up with
25 answers? Nobody specified the bottles dimensions and material. I placed these restric-
tions onto myself. To challenge an assumption, identify it, pretend that it does not exist, and
create alternatives that appear from its absence. If the alternatives are sufficiently attractive,
you might decide that it is worth your while to remove the constraint.39
Do not limit yourself to eliminating the problem. An important instance of challeng-
ing assumptions is to consider not only solutions that eliminate the problem but also those
that can manage its consequences. Indeed, sometimes management may be more desirable.
For instance, in a clinical study of patients with a partial obstruction of coronary arteriesa
heart disease called anginasurgical intervention was performed on some patients. This
means either surgery or removal of the obstruction through balloon angioplasty. These me-
chanical interventions are examples of fixing the problem by eliminating it. The other group
of patients was treated by clinical intervention or medical management, which consisted
of taking medication to lower cholesterol and blood pressure levels. Both approaches have
similar likelihood of heart attack or death. But, given that a mechanical intervention comes
with the risk of heart attack, stroke, and death during the operation, academic physician
Gilbert Welch observes that the medical management of the condition might be more de-
sirable than its elimination, at least as an initial response.40
Management solutions require stretching our comfort zone because they usually imply
coexisting peacefully with the problem. This is what would happen in switching our approach
to treating cancer from waging a war against it to thinking about it as a neighbor (good fences
make good neighbors).41 And this is probably why we are quick at dismissing such solutions.
Management solutions, however, can be perfectly acceptable ones and, when elimination
solutions are comparatively expensive or risky, might even be the more preferableones.
Think about the opposite. Lets go back to our bottle. There are many more things
you can do than what you probably originally thought. In fact, you can do so many things
that you might want to think about the inverse. So, here is a similar exercise:you have three
minutes to think about all the things that you cannot do using a bottle. Startnow.
How many did you find? There cannot be much more than a handful, because now you
know how to relax the constraints that you originally placed on your thinking process. And
that is the point of this exercise:sometimes, to identify how to do something, it can be help-
ful to try and think about how you cannotdoit.
A related approach is to use the worst ideas. Imagine you have a group of people look-
ing to solve a problem. The approach, as presented by Stanfords Tina Seelig, goes like
this:break out the group into teams. Ask each team to think of the best and the worst idea

39. ( John S.Hammond etal., 2002)[p.49].

40. (Welch, 2015)[pp.2834].
41. (R. B.Ness, 2012)[pp.3839], see Chapter3; see also (Welch, 2015)[pp.5861].

130 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 131

(i.e., not efficient or not effective) to solve the problem and capture each idea on a piece of
paper labeled best and worst. Collect the answers, shred all the papers labeled best, and
redistribute the worst ones while ensuring that each team receives an idea generated by
another team. Ask each team to turn the bad idea into a great one. Seelig reports that most
teams quickly realize how to make brilliant ideas out of lemons.42
Dissect the problem. Consider the Birds-and-Trains problem:43 Two train stations are
50 miles apart. At 2 pm one Saturday afternoon two trains start toward each other, one from
each station. Just as the trains pull out of the stations, a bird springs into the air in front of
the first train and flies ahead to the front of the second train. When the bird reaches the
second train, it turns back and flies toward the first train. The bird continues to do this until
the trains meet. If both trains travel at the rate of 25 miles per hour and the bird flies at 100
miles per hour, how many miles will the bird have flown before the trainsmeet?
Focusing on the flight path of the bird results in a difficult problem for most people.
Amuch simpler alternative is to dissect the problem, finding out first how long it takes the
trains to meet (one hour, the time to cover 50 miles at twice 25 mph) and how far the bird
will fly during that time (100 miles).
Differentiate innovation from Innovation. In the 1990s when one wanted to store
information away from ones computer hard drive, one used a CD-ROM. Coming from
a world of floppy disks and, before those, punch cards, these were convenient. Until, of
course, the advent of DVDs which offered a way to store more information on a device of
the same size. What would be the next step? More information still on a disk-size device? As
much information on a smaller disk? No, rather, a new device:a USB flash drive.44
This illustrates the difference between better, faster, cheaper (or incremental/evolu-
tionary/small I) innovations and brand new world or breakthrough/revolutionary/big
I innovations.45
Incremental thinking leads to small improvements. That gets you from the CD-ROM to
the DVD. Breakthrough thinking leads to radical changes, it revolutionizes the existing:it
gets you from the cassette to the CD to the MP3. Incremental and breakthrough thinking
are not compatible in the sense that no matter how many improvements you make to your
DVD, these do not add up to a flash drive. As a result, it is frequent for experts to only be
able to give you incremental answers, because they are already conditioned to stay within
conventional mental sets.46 So if you are looking for breakthrough answers, use novicesor
experts in other fields.
One type of thinking is not consistently better than the other. For instance, incremental
thinking requires less effort and/or differentor even fewerskills, so it might be useful
for quick fixes. It may also be the right way to proceed when the consequences of failure
arehigh.

42. (Seelig, 2009)[pp.3738].

43. (Posner,1973).
44. And USB flash drives also have fallen victim to relentless innovation with the advent of cloud storage, see (Kaur,
Kumar, & Singh,2014).
45. See, for instance (R. Ness, 2013)[pp.45].
46. (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992)[p.33].

Identify Potential Solutions 131

132

The point is that you should explore both types of answers. For instance, you could
separate a work session into two parts and ask your team to first think about incremental
solutions before asking them to think about breakthroughones.
Debate. Although criticism is strictly forbidden in brainstorming, Nemeth et al. have
found that encouraging groups to debate and criticize results in more creativity.47 Debating
and deferring criticism are not mutually exclusive. You can organize sessions so that ample free
thinking comes first, followed by organized debates. Further, debates do not have to be about
whether or not to consider an idea; they may also be about how to make an idea stronger.
Evaluate your creativity. You can characterize the ideas you generate in terms of four
metrics: quantity, the number of ideas you generate; quality, the feasibility of an idea and
how close it is to the original specifications; novelty, how unusual or unexpected an idea is
compared with others; and variety, the number of different categories of ideas generated.48
By assessing the performance of your ideas along these four dimensions, you may identify
weak spots and focus on those.
Give your subconscious time to work. Identifying creative alternatives is hard work.
You might find that you work better in shorter, frequent sessions rather than one or two
long ones. Realize that breaking the task into various sessions also works for you between
sessions, as your subconscious has time to work.49 Stepping back has worked for many il-
lustrious thinkers across time, including mathematician Henri Poincar who found that
spending a few days at the seaside to think about anything but his problem helped him see
a solution.50

2.4. BE MORE INS I GHTFUL

Reframe your thinking. Sometimes, the direct way is not the best one. Consider the old
Arabic tale:Afarmer dies, leaving his 17 camels to be split between his three sons. He wants
the eldest to have half the camels, the second to have a third, and the youngest to have
aninth.
But 17 is not dividable in whole numbers by 2, 3, or 9, so the sons are confused. Not
knowing what to do, they seek help from an elder. The elder is as lost as the three brothers,
but he offers them his own camel, in case it can be of some help. That camel is old and none
of the sons wants it, but they agree nonetheless.
So now they have 18 camels; the eldest son can have his half (9), the second his third
(6), the youngest his ninth (2), and since 9+6+2 only sums to 17, the wise man can have
his old camel back. Problem solved.51

47. (Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & Goncalo,2004).

48. (Shah, Smith, & Vargas-Hernandez,2003).
49. ( John S. Hammond et al., 2002) [pp. 5253]. See also (VanGundy, 1988) [pp. 71210], (Smith & Ward,
2012)[p.469], (Clapham, 2003), (Snyder, Mitchell, Ellwood, Yates, & Pallier,2004).
50. (Poincar, 1908)wrote:Disgusted with my lack of success, Iwent to spend some days at the sea-side and thought of
quite different things. One day, walking along the cliff, the idea came to me, always with the same characteristics of brev-
ity, suddenness, and immediate certainty []. Translation by (Gray, 2013)[p.220].
51. See also (L. L.Thompson, 2012)[pp.186187] for a negotiation impasse that was resolved by involving a thirdparty.

132 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 133

Bringing him back Bringing him back

How can How can
we get Having him we get Enabling him to
Harry back? come back on his Harry back? come back on his
own own

Phrased like this, the second branch Instead, concentrating on actions

is about actions that you cannot that you can take is more
really influence, which is of little productive.
practical value.

FIGURE5.10: Concentrate on what you can do to solve the problem.

Being stuck looking at the problem from only one direction (e.g., how to divide 17 in
whole numbers?)the fixation phenomenon introduced in Chapter3we may fail to see
that a solution exists. So if you cannot find a solution given how you originally framed your
problem, you should step back and consider it from a different angle. To help you reframe
your thinking, the story offers a couple ofclues:
Enlist a wise advisor. Stepping back from a situation is hard work, especially if you have
been at it for a long time or if you are emotionally connected. Get external help. Also, get
dumb help:novices.
Use a catalyst. In chemistry, a catalyst is a substance that initiates or accelerates a reaction
without itself being affected. Getting an old camel that no one wants cannot possibly solve
our deadlock until it actually does and the camel goes back to hisowner.
Formulate all elements as actions that you can take. Your map helps you identify al-
ternative ways to solve your problem, but you should phrase its elements as actions that you
can take. Even in situations where you are not in control (e.g., Figure 5.10), you should still
think in terms of what you can do to influence the person in control.

Increasing unit
prices
How can
Revenue is the product of unit
we increase Selling more units
prices and number of units
revenues?
sold, so this third item has to be
Adding new redundant with at least one of
products those two.

Increasing unit
Increasing prices
revenues from Realizing that that third item is
current products an outlier, you can reorganize
How can Selling more units
we increase the breakdown, adding one
revenues? layer to create a structure
Increasing unit
without outliers.
Adding new prices
products
Selling more units

FIGURE5.11: Chasing outliers can help you acquire additional insight.

Identify Potential Solutions 133

134

Chase outliers. If all but one of the children in a node belong to a single category,
take a moment to understand the mechanics fully, as you might acquire additional insight.
Consider the example of Figure 5.11. Increasing unit prices, selling more units, and adding
new products are indeed three ways to increase revenues.
But further inspecting the list reveals that the three elements are not similar:the first two
directly influence revenues (as revenues equal price times volume) but the last does not. So
you might realize that the latter segments the products between new ones and, one can only
guess, current ones. Restructuring the elements to make this structure apparent helps you
investigate the value of adding new products:would that help prices and/or volumes?
Introduce one variable per node. To reduce the risk of introducing gaps in your logic,
it is usually advisable to introduce only one variable per node. Although this may make your
map bigger, it simplifies reviewing the logic and ensuring that no gaps have appeared.

2.5. EL IMINATE DI STRACT I ONS

Because drawing an issue map requires both creative and analytical thinking, it is strenuous.
So chances are that your mind will try to lure you away into doing anything but developing
the map. One way to help you focus on the analysis is to eliminate distractions:close your
e-mail, do not answer the phone, use the Internet only to fish for specific items of informa-
tion, do not worry about the format of your arguments,etc.
You may further reduce distractions through higher clarity, which can be enhanced by
standardizing elements, for instance, by repeating similar elements in various branches in-
stead of unnecessarily varying them. Although this will arguably make a map somewhat
boring, clarity should take precedence over flamboyance.52 You will also benefit from using
parallelism.
Be parallel. Making elements parallel in your issue maps allows you to simplify them,
thereby reducing the cognitive load needed to check whether the logic issound.
In Figure 5.12 (a), when looking at ways to improve our clients experience, we divide
the experience into two MECE components: up to the sale and after the sale. Then we pro-
pose to improve the shopping experience, that is, everything up to the sale, which is fine.
The problem arises when we propose to only follow up after the sale, because following up
is not all that we can possibly do to improve the post-sale experience (for instance, we could
offer a discount for a second purchase), so our map is not CE. Changing our argument
to a parallel oneimproving the shopping experience and improving the post-sale experi-
encehelps us realize that there is a gap in our logic.53
Parallelism in construction, or grammar, is also useful: by using a consistent phrase
construction in all elements of a map, you reduce distractions and make it easier to check
your logic. In Figure 5.12 (b), we branch off into three sub-issues. Although all three are

52. Physicist Michael McIntyre thinks that variation in writing is overrated. He argues that lucid, informative writing
uses more repetition, and less variation, than the reader might think (McIntyre,1997).
53. Indeed, parallelism of arguments is a necessary condition for MECEness, so if a category has elements that are not
parallel, you know that you need to modifyit.

134 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 135

(a) Ensure parallelism in action:

Improving their Improving their

How can How can
shopping shopping
we improve we improve
experience experience Following up after
our clients our clients
experience? experience? the sale
Following up after
the sale Improving their
Offering a discount
post-sale
on a second
experience
purchase

...

(b) Ensure parallelism in grammar:

Reducing our Reducing our

delivery time delivery time
How can How can Use the same
we improve By increasing our we improve Increasing our grammatical
our clients friendliness our clients friendliness construction for all
post-sale post-sale elements.
experience? How can we solve experience? Solving their
their problem the problem the
first time out? first time out

FIGURE5.12: Parallelism applies both to how the ideas are formulated and what they actuallyare.

acceptable, using all three in a given map makes it more difficult to validate the map. Instead,
you should use the same grammatical construction in all elements.

2.6. ASSEMBLE A GOODTEAM

In general, diverse teams have been shown to be more performant, in the long run, than ho-
mogeneous ones.54 To leverage diversity better, Hammond etal. recommend that you start
by identifying alternative solutions on your own, so as to not be too constrained by what is
commonly accepted in the discipline.55 Only then, should you enlist others tohelp.
Include people with heterogeneous knowledge. There is no consensus on the impact
of diversity on a teams performance,56 but some studies have found that diversity positively
influences a groups performance.57 People with heterogeneous backgrounds filter informa-
tion in different ways, which helps information and knowledge to emerge.58
Hong and Page found that teams of people randomly selected from a diverse pool of
intelligent agents outperform teams of best-performing agents. This is because, as the

54. (McLeod etal., 1996)[p.257], (Hoffman & Maier, 1961)[p.407], (Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen,1993).
55. ( John S.Hammond etal., 2002)[p.50].
56. See (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003)[p.13] for a review.
57. ( Jehn etal., 1999), (Hoffman & Maier,1961).
58. (National Research Council, 2011a) [p.64]. See also ( Jeppesen & Lakhani,2010).

Identify Potential Solutions 135

136

population of agents to choose from becomes larger, the very-best-performing agents have
to grow more similar, squeezing out diversity.59 Although both diversity and ability are im-
portant, under certain conditions, diversity trumps ability.60
Ensure that you can overcome the price of diversity. Although team diversity may
result in better performance, this comes at a price. Homogeneous groups, for instance, are
initially more effective than heterogeneous ones61 and, for it to have a net positive effect on
group performance, diversity requires careful management,62 such as using more negotia-
tion and conflict-resolution skills than when managing homogeneous teams.63 The added
value brought by diversity is also conditional:Page points out that diversity needs to be rel-
evant to the task (if a loved one requires open-heart surgery, we do not want a collection of
butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers carving open the chest cavity) and that the team
members must be able to getalong.64

2.7. L INK ALL ELEMENTS TOA FORMAL

HYPOTHES I S
As with a diagnostic map, once your solution map is sufficiently explicit, you need to specify
hypotheses, the analysis that you need to do to test these, the evidence that you will con-
sider, and your conclusions.
Overall, developing solution maps is similar to developing diagnostic ones:All elements
must be linked to a hypothesis; otherwise, you will have holes in your analysis. Also, you
do not have to write an individual hypothesis for each element:you can group elements
judiciously. When you do, make sure that you concentrate your energy on the branches that
you think offer the best solutions.
At this point we are finished with the bulk of our divergent thinking. Next, we will need
to test our hypotheses to find the best solution(s). Before we see how to do that, lets go
back toHarry.

2.8. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?

Figure 5.13 shows that, in Harrys case, we identified six major ways to get himback.
We further analyzed each of those, identifying concrete ways to achieve them, specify-
ing which direction we would start our search in or which websites we would check for
announcements. Of note is the last branch:Even though it depends entirely on Harry, it is

59. (Hong & Page,2004).

60. (Page, 2007)[pages xxvi, xxix, and10].
61. (Watson etal.,1993).
62. (Williams & OReilly,1998)
63. (Ancona & Caldwell,1992)
64. (Page, 2007)[p.5 and xxix]. See also (Mannix & Neale, 2005)[p.32] for a review and (Eesley, Hsu, & Roberts,
2014)for a discussion of settings in which diversity may not be beneficial.

136 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

FIGURE5.13: In Harrys case, we identified six major ways to get himback.
138

formulated as actions that we can takehow can we enable him to come? We then devel-
oped a set of formal hypotheses following the principles of Chapter4.
This chapter showed how to map out the solution space for our problem: as in Chapter
3, if we have worked well, all the possible ways in which we can solve our problem are explic-
itly laid out in our how map. Next, we need to select the one(s) we want to pursue. Chapter
6 explains how to do so.

NOTES
Value of decoupling solution generation and evaluation. See our discussion on
System 1 versus System 2 thinking in Chapter3.
Include all answers in your map. Include all ideas in your map, even implausible ones,
because they can prime other ideas.65 Also, Nemeth has shown that exposing people to a
wrong answer helps improve their creativity (see [Lehrer,2012]:Even when alternative
views are clearly wrong, being exposed to them still expands our creative potential.)
Convergence and divergence of maps. In decision-tree parlance, maps have only burst
nodes (splitting paths), no sink nodes (converging paths).
More on groupthink. Groupthink is a tendency of people who are part of highly cohe-
sive groups to become more interested in unanimity than appraising alternatives.66
Functional diversity and team performance. Higher functional diversity has not
always been found to be associated with higher performance.67
Analogical problem solving. For an in-depth treatment, see (Holyoak,2012).
Measuring creativity. Psychologist J.P. Guilford proposed to measure creativity along
three dimensions:fluency (confronted with a problem, how many different ideas can the
respondent think of), flexibility (how many different types of ideas), and originality (how
unique are the ideas).68
Training for creativity works. Training can improve creativity, especially programs fo-
cusing on developing cognitive skills and involving skill application.69
Brainstorming. The term was coined by Alex Osborn, a U.S.advertising executive, to
describe how to use the brain to storm a creative problemand doing so in commando
fashion, with each stormer attacking the same objective.70 In Spanish, it is called an idea
rain (lluvia de ideas)perhaps a betterimage.
What is brainstorming/brainwriting? There are various versions of brainstorming
and brainwriting.71

65. See (Nemeth et al., 2004) [p. 368] citing a paper by Dugosh, Paulus, Roland, and Yang (2000).
66. (Ginnett, 2010)[p.92]. See (Turner & Pratkanis, 1998)and (L. L.Thompson, 2011)[pp.157165].
67. For a review, see (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008)[p.438].
68. See Thompson for further description (L. Thompson,2003).
69. (Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004). See also Basadur etal. (Basadur, Graen, & Scandura,1986).
70. (Osborn,1948).
71. See (VanGundy, 1988)[p.7374] for a typology.

138 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 139

Love the bottle (or the brick). Identifying as many uses as possible for an object
usually, a construction brickis known as the Unusual Uses test or the Alternative Uses
test.72
More on Delphi. See also (Goodman, 1987), (National Research Council, 2011b)
[p.187]73
Interactions in group problem-solving. Although Vroom et al. found that interac-
tions among members of the solving team during the generation phase were dysfunctional,
they also found that interactions during the evaluation phase were beneficial.74
Value of diversity. Although diversity is reported to add significant value under some
settings75,76 it comes at a cost. Diverse groups may be more subject to conflict77 or take longer
to generate results of comparable or superior quality to homogeneous groups.78 It may be
useful to consider the impact of these limitations in deciding how diverse a team shouldbe.
Leveraging diversity by changing tasks. Page remarks that diversity works best on
disjunctive tasksthose where the success of any individual results in the groups success
rather than on conjunctive tasks, where everyones success is critical.79 If possible, transform
conjunctive tasks into disjunctive ones. InnoCentives engagement of thousands of indi-
viduals on their clients problems is an example of how to dothis.
Is brainstorming really underperforming? Sutton and Hargadon point out how crit-
ics of brainstorming use its comparatively lower number of ideas generated by unit of time as
evidence of its ineffectiveness.80 But this is a measure of efficiency, not effectiveness. Sutton
and Hargadon point to other types of value that brainstorming brings, including supporting
the organizational memory, diversifying the skill set of participants, promoting a wisdom-
based attitude (i.e., acting with knowledge while constantly reassessing ones belief), using
competition to acquire status, impressing clients, and providing income for thefirm.
Transcending brainstorming. Van de Ven & Delbecq found that both brainwriting
and Delphi are more effective than traditional brainstorming.81
Some connectivity helps. Analyzing the performance of Broadway shows, Uzzi and
Spiro found that the best teams were part of a small world network, where people have an
intermediate level of social intimacy (they called it a bliss point):sufficiently connected
but not so much that they start acting alike.82

72. (Guilford,1956).
73. (P. M.Mullen,2003).
74. (Vroom etal.,1969).
75. (Page, 2007), (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997), (Loewenstein, 2012) [p.762].
76. (National Research Council, 2011a) [p. 27].
77. ( Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999).
78. (McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996).
79. (Page, 2007).
80. (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996).
81. (Van de Ven & Delbecq,1974).
82. (Uzzi & Spiro, 2005), (Lehrer,2012).

Identify Potential Solutions 139

140
 141

CHAPTER6

SELECT A SOLUTION

D eveloping a solution map has helped you identify the alternatives

available to answer your key question. Next, you need to select the one(s) that you should
implement.
We, as people, are notoriously good at fooling ourselves into thinking that we are good
intuitive decision makers, but, in reality, we are influenced by all sorts of factors, some of
which have nothing to do with the decision under consideration. For instance, the weather
impacts university admissions (clouds make nerds look better)!1 So adopting a structured
decision-making approach for dealing with complex problems is advisable.
There is considerable literature on decision analysis, a discipline defined by Decision
Sciences professor Ralph Keeney as, a formalization of common sense for decision prob-
lems which are too complex for informal use of common sense.2 We will only brush the
surface of decision analysis by presenting one method.3
Our approach to selecting a solution has two steps:First, we will screen the hypotheses
that we obtained in Chapter5 to remove the unsuitable alternatives. Then, we will compare
the remaining solutions to identify which we should implement.

1. REMOVE UNSUITABLE ALTERNATIVES

Our solution map led us to a set of hypotheses, each a form of the statement, following this
course of action is a worthwhile effort to solve our problem. Now we need to decide which
one(s) to pursue. Up to now, we have not considered the desirability or feasibility of these
hypotheses, focusing instead on fostering creativity by considering all courses of action that
are logically valid answers to the key question. So, identifying which solution(s) to pursue
starts with eliminating those that are not suitable.
One way to do this is to pass them through a screen to identify whether the solutions
meet all necessary and sufficient conditions. Perhaps the simplest such screen is that of

1. (Simonsohn, 2007). For another example, see (Ariely & Loewenstein,2006).

2. (Ralph L Keeney, 1982)[p.806].
3. For more on the subject, see (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[pp.1330], (Ralph L Keeney, 1992), (Eisenfhr, Weber, &
Langer, 2010), (Luce & Raiffa, 1957), or (von Winterfeldt & Edwards,1986).
142

Feasible (I can do it)

The proposed solution is...
Desirable (I want to do it)

FIGURE6.1: Ascreen can help you validate that the option you are considering meets all your necessary
criteria.

Figure 6.1, where we assess whether the alternative under consideration is feasible and
desirable.
Alternative screens are available. That of Figure 6.2 borrows concepts from various
sources, including Gauchs full-disclosure model, which advocates spelling out all aspects of

We have the necessary

skills

We have the necessary

infrastructure, capacity
(including time), money,
and/or brand

We can make the

necessary people do
what they must to get it
It has a high done
probability
of success It is sufficiently legal/
ethical/compliant with
... potential
regulations/consistent
success is
with our values & culture
attractive
Generic screen. The
proposed projects... It has an acceptable cost
of opportunity

It has worked in the past

and/or is working
elsewhere (for us or
others)

It solves a significant part

of the problem
Success has a
high payoff It is not creating an
unmanageable problem
elsewhere

The probability of
... potential
failure is low
failure is
manageable
The cost of failure is low

FIGURE6.2: Screens/checklists are useful to further understand possible courses of action.

142 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 143

ones reasoning,4 along with the management concept that one should consider the return
on investment of projects in deciding whether to authorizethem.5
Screens may be more specialized. For instance, faced with the decision of whether to au-
thorize a project, you may use van Gelders (see Figure 6.3).6 An alternative is to use Rices
David Leebrons SAILS screen,7 which validates that a project is Strategic, Accountable,
Impactful, Leveraged, and Sustainable.
As an alternative to using an existing screen, you may prefer to develop your own. But,
irrespective of your personal preference, keep in mind that using a screen is advisable, be-
cause it facilitates comparing solutions on a set of similar measures, thereby enabling a more
equitable comparison of options.8 So, for a specific project, you should identify one screen
and use that for all of your hypotheses.

Strategically sound

Financially sound

Operationally sound
van Gelders screen. The
proposed project is... Prudentially sound (i.e.,
acceptable from a risk
perspective)

Ethically sound

Legally sound

Strategic

Accountable

Leebrons SAILS. The

Impactful
proposed project is...

Leveraged

Sustainable

FIGURE 6.3: [V]an Gelder and Leebron offer screens tailored to strategic projects. Van Gelders screen
is from: van Gelder, Elements of a major business decision

4. (Gauch, 2003)[p.128].
5. There are alternatives to using ROI for project evaluation; see (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999)for a discussion.
6. (van Gelder,2010).
7. (Leebron,2015).
8. (Archer & Ghasemzadeh,1999).

Select a Solution 143

144

As you run a hypothesis through a screen, you might reject it quickly. For instance, con-
sidering Hypothesis 2locating Harrys chip or ID tag is a worthwhile effort to get him
backand realizing that Harry does not have either, leads us to abandon H2 without having
to go through the entire battery of questions (see Figure 6.4).

1.1. LOOK FOREV IDENC E

Evaluating whether a proposed method is a suitable solution requires gathering evidence.
But for many of us not used to doing so, using quality evidence can be harder than it appears.
In particular, Stanfords Pfeffer and Sutton identified six substitutes that business managers
use instead of the best evidence:9

Obsolete knowledge, that is, relying on old data that does not incorporate more
recent advances;
Personal experiencebecause information acquired personally is more vivid than
other information, we sometimes disregard the biases of our own experience and
prefer it to research;10
Specialist skills, that is, defaulting to the particular approach with which we have
the most experience;
Hype, namely, doing something because everyone else does it or because gurus
recommend to do so (based on weak evidence);11
Dogma/belief, that is, letting ourselves being influenced by ideology;and
Inappropriate benchmarking, that is, imitation of top performers when it is not
warranted.12

Others come to mindfor instance, reliance on data from a mistaken or purposefully

misleading source.You, therefore, should be careful in selecting the evidence that you use
to test your hypotheses. This can be challenging because chances are that some of your
sources of information have a vested interest in being partialsuch as pharmaceutical ven-
dors in medicine13 and consultants, gurus, and business schools in management14 to name
just twoor may be suffering from biases.15
To help you use evidence, carefully analyze the logic behind each item of evidence to
uncover incorrect cause-and-effect reasoning.16 Ask and encourage others to ask questions
and adopt an inquisitive relationship with evidence. Learn to look for empirical evidence

9. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006a) [p.5].

10. (Denrell, 2003); see also, the ease of recall bias and the retrievability bias (Bazerman & Moore, 2008)[pp.1821].
11. (Rousseau, 2006)[p.257].
12. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [pp.68].
13. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006a).
14. (Abrahamson,1996).
15. (Tversky & Kahneman,1974).
16. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006a).

144 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 145
We have the necessary skills

... Harry does not

have a chip and was
not wearing his ID
tag when he
disappeared
(accepted as credible
We have the
with no further
necessary
inquiry )
infrastructure, Objection:
capacity (including but...
time), money, and/or and
brand
... Harry must have a
chip or wear his ID
It has a high tag for this
probability alternative to be
of success successful (accepted
potential as self-evident) Decision: Reject
success is Synthesis: Irrespective
H2: Tracking Harry's attractive We can make the necessary people of other requirements,
chip or ID tag is a do what they must to get it done Harry not having a chip
worthwhile effort to
or ID tag means that
get him back It is sufficiently legal/ethical/ this alternative is not a
compliant with regulations/ worthwhile effort to
Reason: consistent with our values & culture get Harry back
because...
It has an acceptable cost of
opportunity

It has worked in the past and/or is

working elsewhere (for us or
others)

It solves a significant part of the

Success has problem
a high payoff
It is not creating an unmanageable
problem elsewhere

The probability of
potential failure is low
failure is
manageable The cost of failure is
low

FIGURE6.4: Screening can be useful to discard unfeasible alternatives.

146

Trustworthiness
Level 1: Evidence obtained from at least one
LI properly designed randomized controlled trial.

Level II-1: Evidence obtained from well-designed

controlled trials without randomization.

Level II-2: Evidence obtained from well-designed

Level II cohort or case-control analytic studies, preferably
from more than one center or research group.

Level II-3: Evidence obtained from multiple time series

with or without intervention. Dramatic results in
uncontrolled trials might also be regarded as this type
of evidence.

Level III: Opinions of respected authorities, based on

Level III clinical experience, descriptive studies, or reports of
expert committees.

FIGURE6.5: Not all evidence is equally trustworthy.

After (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 1989).

and critically appraise its strength.17 Develop a willingness to put aside conventional wisdom
and unsupported beliefs and substitute them, in the words of Pfeffer and Sutton, with an
unrelenting commitment to gather the necessary facts to make more informed and intelligent
decisions.18
Grade the strength of evidence. The strength of evidence ranges from weak to strong,
where the latter should trump the former, irrespective of the sources charisma.19 Putting
this into practice may not be as obvious as it sounds, and organizations in some disciplines
and industries have issued guidelines to help people grade the strength of evidence. For
instance, in medicine, results from randomized controlled trials are the gold standard, to
be trusted more than results from trials conducted without randomization (see Figure 6.5).
Randomized controlled means that the participants are assigned randomly to the group
receiving the treatment or to the control group, which may receive a placebo. At the next
level is evidence obtained from well-designed controlled trials without randomization. Next
is the evidence obtained from individual cases. And so continues the decrease in strength,
until it reaches the bottom of the pyramid:expert opinions.20
Thompson reminds young researchers that the Royal Societys motto is nullius in
verbawhich approximately translates to take nobodys word for itand he advises them to
not believe all they read, even in journals and books.21 Given that many findings, even those

17. (Axelsson,1998).
18. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006a).
19. (Sherman, 2002)[pp.221222].
20. (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 1989), (Grimes & Schulz, 2002). See also (Schnemann et al., 2006),
(Schnemann et al., 2008), (Barends, ten Have, & Huisman, 2012) [pp. 3537].
21. (Thompson,2013).

146 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 147

published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals, cannot be reproduced,22 Thompsons

advice seems wise. And yet it is at odds with the practice in some industries where the opin-
ions of so-called gurus are readily followed without any further evidence than their own
assertions.23

1.2. DO NOT BO I L THEO C EAN

Screening hypotheses requires gathering appropriate evidence. For some problems, the
principal challenge will be to find relevant data. In other situations, you might have so much
information readily available that your primary challenge will be to stay afloat above itall.
When looking for data, you may use a brute-force approachgather all the information
available about the subject and then analyze it to see what is useful. Or, you may adopt a tar-
geted approach, first thinking about the information you need, then thinking about where
to find it, then gathering it, and finally stepping back to see what it means for your problem.
The brute force/ground-up/boiling-the-ocean/theres-a-ponyinheresomewhere
(Im throwing in a few images, in case you want to enter a metaphor contest) approach
seems acceptable if you have a lot of time; it requires digging around, analyzing great vol-
umes of data, and going through the inductive process of identifying what it all means as a
body of evidence. This approach, however, is usually not advisable. One problem is that, in
the end, you will probably use only a fraction of the information you have gathered, so the
signal-to-noise ratio is low, and you are spending a lot of resources gathering and ordering
all that useless data; that is to say, the process is inefficient. It is also ineffective, given that
this gathering of peripheral data may facilitate pseudodiagnosticity.24
Rather, it is usually preferable to adopt a more focused approach. Identify the data you
need to get, get it, go back up to see how that changes the picture, and decide what your next
action should be. This requires not getting sucked into a part of the analysis so much that
you lose track of what is more important; that is to say, always keep the big picture in mind.
In cases where you have identified the required information, but it is not yet available, con-
sider integrating it into your analysis/report with a not yet available tag as a placeholder.25

1.3. TRI ANGULATE ONANSWERS

As we have discussed in Chapter4, an item of evidence is usually compatible with more
than one hypothesis. Indeed, Talebs turkey, based on observations that the farmer fed him
every morning, incorrectly concluded that he was in a safe place, a costly mistake on the
eve of Thanksgiving. It is also common to gather incorrect evidence about a hypothesis as
a result of error or deception. To sidestep this issue, you should corroborate findings from

22. (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). See also (Ioannidis,2005).

23. See (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [pp.4546].
24. See (Arkes & Kajdasz, 2011)[pp.157161], Chapter4.
25. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [pp.1821].

Select a Solution 147

148

Receiver 2

Receiver 1

Receiver 3
Receiver 4

FIGURE6.6:Triangulate on answersthat is, get evidence from independent sourcesto improve the
reliability of your analysis.

independent sources before concludingthe key word being independent, otherwise the
repeated information will be overweighted.26
In telecommunication, the source of a radio signal can be worked out through the use of
a goniometer.27 Two or more receivers can be used to each identify the bearing of a signal at
each receiving station and, knowing where these are located, an analyst can triangulate the
directions to find the sources (see Figure6.6).
There are a couple of lessons to learn from this analogy:

Everything else held equal, the more sources the better (in Figure 6.6 the
intersection of all 4 rays is darker than any of 3, 2, or 1),and
Different perspectives are better than similar ones (the overlap from receivers 1 and
4 in Figure 6.6which have almost perpendicular positions with respect to the
sourceis much smaller than that of receivers 1 and 2, which have close to identical
perspectives, thereby zeroing-in much more efficiently on the source.28

So if at all possible, when testing hypotheses approach them from various angles and
rely on independent sources. This is especially valid when you encounter contradictory
evidence; there, triangulating evidence from independent sources may be especially useful
because it reduces errors and increases innovation and the robustness of estimates.29

26. (National Research Council, 2011)[p.130]. See also (Armstrong, 2001)and (Schum, 1994)[pp.124126] for cor-
roborative and converging evidence.
27. See, for instance, (Tsuruda & Hayashi,1975).
28. The Allies relied on a large number of widely spaced listening posts to pinpoint the location of German U-boats
during World War II, see (Blair, 2000)[p.76].
29. (National Research Council, 2011) [p.177]. See also (Cottrell, 2011) [pp. 142144], (Institute of Medicine,
2014)[pp.6977].

148 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 149

we know how to
{drive/ride and/or walk
... we have the necessary
around} (accepted as
skills
credible with no further
inquiry)

... we have the necessary we have {a car/bike

infrastructure, capacity and/or shoes} (accepted
(including time), money, as credible with no further
and/or brand inquiry)

we do not need anyone

... we can make the
else to do anything
necessary people do what
(accepted as credible with
they must to get it done
no further inquiry) Decision:
Synthesis: Having rejected
... it is sufficiently no such concerns apply a co-premise, we reject
Reason: compliant with regulations in this case (accepted as the reason
because... /legal/ethical/consistent credible with no further
with our values & culture inquiry)

{driving/riding/walking
around} requires our full
... it has an acceptable dedication for an extended
cost of opportunity amount of time (accepted
as credible with no further
inquiry)

... meeting the

accepted as
requirements above
credible with no further
amounts to having a high
inquiry
probability of success

FIGURE6.7: Maps are useful to capture your analysis, the evidence supporting it, and your conclusions.

1.4. CAPTURE THERESULTS OFYOUR ANALYS I S

INTHEMAP
In Gauchs words, at most, a scientific argument may be correct; at least, it should be fully
disclosed. Full disclosure is the first and minimal requirement for clear scientific reasoning.30
Maps are useful to identify what analysis you need to do and capture the evidence sup-
porting your conclusions. But they also are useful to follow Gauchs precepts by allow-
ing you to capture your conclusions (see Figure 6.7). Someone reviewing your analysis
may disagree with your conclusions, but at least there will be no ambiguity as to how you
reachedthem.

2. COMPARE THEPERFORMANCE OFTHE

REMAINING ALTERNATIVES ANDDECIDE
Having screened all the alternatives and created the subset of those that are acceptable,
you still need to decide which one(s) to implement. Sometimes, choosing one precludes

30. (Gauch, 2003)[p.131].

Select a Solution 149

150

you from choosing another; for example, to go from NewYork to London once, taking
a plane precludes you from taking a boat or swimming. In other situations, you may
be able to implement several alternatives: To increase the profitability of your com-
pany you may decide to reduce costs and increase revenues. But even then, your limited
resourcesor other constraintsmay prevent you from implementing both alterna-
tives simultaneously. So the question remains, in which order should you implement
your alternatives?
In complex problems, one frequently aims at deciding among various options while
considering multiple objectives. For instance, in deciding how to search for Harry, you
may want to select the alternative that gives you the best chance of success. But a quick
result may also be attractive; after all, you would rather find him within hours than within
days. Similarly, the cost associated with retrieving him might be a consideration.
We all make countless decisions every day, and for many of thosechoosing what
clothes to wear, deciding on biking or driving to work, etc.approaching the decision pro-
cess informally is perfectly appropriate. There is, however, considerable evidence showing
that we suffer from a number of biases that seriously impede our ability to consider the
multiple dimensions of complex problems.31
For such problems, therefore, it usually is wiser to use a multiattribute utility decision
tool rather than an intuitive approach.32 One of these tools is the simple multiattribute
rating technique exploiting ranks (SMARTER). The idea is to break down the problem
into small parts and look at each part separately. As Table 6.1 shows, applying SMARTER
is an eight-stage process:33
Lets look at these steps in detail and apply them in Harryscase.

1. Identify the decision maker(s). John will be the decision maker. (In those situ-
ations where you have several decision makers, it is advisable to try to persuade
them all to cooperate.34)

TABLE 6.1: ApplyingSMARTER toa decision problem can be achieved following

aneight-step processa
1 Identify the decision maker(s)
2 Identify the alternative courses ofaction
3 Identify the attributes of the decision
4 Evaluate the performance of each alternative on each attribute
5 Assign a weight to each attribute
6 Compute a weighted average score for each alternative
7 Make a provisional decision
8 Perform sensitivity analysis

after (Goodwin & Wright,2009) (p.34).

a

31. (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982), (Bazerman & Moore, 2008)[p.179], (Makridakis & Gaba, 1998)[pp.1213].
32. See, for instance (Dawes & Corrigan, 1974), (Dawes,1979).
33. See, for instance (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[p.34].
34. (Edwards,1977).

150 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 151

2. Identify the alternative courses of action. We have already done this: In

Chapter5 we considered all possible alternatives and in the previous sections
we weeded out those that were unsuitable. In the end, we are left with five alter-
natives from which to choose (see Table6.2).
3. Identify the attributes of the decision. Attributes are those criteria, those prop-
erties of the alternatives that matter to us when making our decision. Keeney &
Raiffa describe a good set of attributesas:
Complete, that is, the set covers all the important aspects of the problem;
Operational, that is, the set can be meaningfully used in the analysis;
Decomposable, that is, aspects of the evaluation process can be simplified by
breaking it down intoparts;
Nonredundant, that is, there is no double counting of impacts;and
Minimal, that is, the problem is kept as small as possible.35

Although you want to find a set of attributes that appropriately captures what is impor-
tant to the decision maker, you do not want to include too many attributes, because this can
complicate operations unnecessarily. To accomplish this, you may simply omit less impor-
tant attributes.36
In Harrys case, identifying attributes may look like this: the individual likelihood of
success of each alternative is obviously important and, therefore, should be considered. So
should the timeliness of each course of action: Although it is possible to call pet associations
now (at 5 pm), it will not be possible to do so at 10 pm. Posting signs in the neighborhood,
however, is something we could do at night. Therefore, choosing to implement alternatives
in the right order may enable us to implement more by a given deadline. (So an alternative
with a high score in timeliness would be one that does not have to be implemented right
away and that allows us to pursue other alternatives simultaneously. An alternative with a low
score in timeliness would require immediate and undivided attention.) Other attributes may
be the anticipated speed of success and the lack of cost of implementing the alternative (see
Table 6.3).

TABLE 6.2: After aninitial screening, we are left withfive alternatives forHarryscase

H1:Search the neighborhood

H2: Track Harrys chip or ID tag
H3:Inform people likely to know about missing animals
H4:Post virtual announcements
H5:Check announcements
H6:Enable Harry to come back by himself

35. (Ralph L.Keeney & Raiffa, 1993)[p.50]. See also (Ralph L Keeney, 2007)[pp.117118].
36. (Edwards, 1977)[p.328].

Select a Solution 151

152

TABLE6.3:The Third Step inApplying SMARTER is toIdentify theAttributes of

the Decision

Attributes that we select to rank the various alternatives in Harrys case:

Individual likelihood of success Timeliness Speed of success Low cost

4. Evaluate the performance of each alternative on each attribute. One way to

do this is to rank alternatives by giving them each a score between 0 and 100, 0
going to the least preferred option and 100 to the most.37

Although evaluating performance may be done subjectively, for instance by asking rel-
evant experts and stakeholders for their opinions, research can make your decision more
evidence-based. For instance, to evaluate the individual likelihood of success of each alter-
native for finding Harry, we can adapt the results of a study that identified the effectiveness
of various courses of action for finding lost dogs (see Table 6.4).38
The study does not map perfectly to our approach:a hypothesis is not included, others
do not map one-to-one, and it is unclear whether the analysis, performed several years ago
in a different part of the country, is applicable to Harrys case. So judgment is required to
evaluate its relevance. Upon reflection, however, we feel more comfortable using this data
than going with our own guess, so we use it as a basis to evaluate the individual likelihood of
success of the alternatives, transferring the original percentages to values on a 0100 scale
where we assign 100 to the best alternative and 0 to the worst (see Table6.5).

TABLE 6.4:To
Help Us Evaluate the Likelihood of Success of Each Search Strategy,
We Use Data Published in Similar Settingsa

Individual likelihood of success

H1:Searching the neighborhood 15%
H2: Tracking Harrys chip or ID tag 28%
H3:Informing people likely to know about missing animals 35%
H4:Posting virtual announcements 5%
H5:Checking announcements N/A
H6:Enabling Harry to come back by himself 8%

Adapted from Lord, Wittum, Ferketich, Funk, & Rajala-Schultz, 2007.

a

37. (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[p.38], (Edwards, 1977). This is a direct-rating method. For alternatives, see (Eisenfhr
etal., 2010)[pp.113122].
38. (Lord etal., 2007). See also (Weiss, Slater, & Lord,2012).

152 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 153

TABLE6.5: We Translate
thePerformance ofEach Alternative toa Score between
0 (Worst) and 100(Best)

Individual likelihood of success Value

H1:Searching the neighborhood 15% 50
H2: Tracking Harrys chip or ID tag 28% N/A
H3:Informing people likely to know about missing animals 35% 100
H4:Posting virtual announcements 5% 15
H5:Checking announcements N/A 0
H6:Enabling Harry to come back on his own 8% 30

We then assign values to the other alternatives using the space between their scores to
indicate the strength of our preference for them. Note that precision in the values is not
necessary because it usually requires significant changes to alter rankings.39
Table 6.6 shows the performance of the alternatives in all four attributes. (Lord etal.s
study also listed the time dogs were lost in each case, thereby helping us evaluate the quick-
ness of success.)

5. Assign a weight to each attribute. Next, we assign weights to the attributes to reflect
how comparatively important each is to the decision maker. One way to do this is to use
the centroid method, which is a two-step process. The first step is to ask the decision
maker to rank the attributes.40 To do so, ask the decision maker:Imagine a new alter-
native, the worst possible alternative, one that has the worst possible performance on
all attributes. Now imagine that you can improve its performance in just one attribute,

TABLE 6.6: We then Evaluate the Performance of all Alternatives on the Three Other
Attributes

Individual likelihood
of success Timeliness Speed of success Low cost
H1:Searching the neighborhood 50 100 100 90
H3:Informing people likely to know 100 100 80 100
about missing animals
H4:Posting virtual announcements 15 20 20 0
H5:Checking announcements 0 0 0 100
H6:Enabling Harry to come back on 30 90 100 100
his own

39. (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[pp.3839].

40. (Edwards & Barron, 1994)[p.316].

Select a Solution 153

154

TABLE6.7: Rank Order Centroid Weights

Number of attributes (k)

Rank of attribute 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 0.750 0.611 0.521 0.457 0.408 0.370
2 0.250 0.278 0.271 0.257 0.242 0.228
3 0.111 0.146 0.157 0.158 0.156
4 0.063 0.090 0.103 0.109
5 0.040 0.061 0.073
6 0.028 0.044
7 0.020

enabling it to go from the worst performance to the best possible performance. Which
attribute would you improve? Once the decision maker has selected one of the at-
tributes, repeat the question, asking him to exclude the attribute he has just selected.
Repeat the operation until all attributes have been selected. You now have a ranking of
attributes from the most important (selected first) to the least important (selectedlast).

The second step in the process is to assign weights using the rank order centroid weights
(ROC).41 The value of the weights depends on the number of attributes. For k attributes,

The weight of the first attribute, w1, is:w1=(1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + + 1/k)/k,
the weight of the second attribute, w2, is:w2=(0 + 1/2 + 1/3 + + 1/k)/k,
the weight of the third attribute, w3, is:w3=(0 + 0 + 1/3 + + 1/k)/k, and so forth.42

Table 6.7 provides rank order centroid weights for analyses, including up to seven
attributes.43
In Harrys case, we ask John to imagine a terrible alternative, one that has almost no chance
of succeeding, requires immediate and full attention, will take several weeks to succeed, and will
cost $1,000 to implement. If he could improve just one of these attributes, we ask, which would
it be? He selects individual likelihood of success. We then ask him this question again, barring
individual likelihood of success as an option. Because he wants to implement as many alternatives
as possible in a matter of hours, he selects timeliness. He then has to choose between speed of suc-
cess and low cost, and goes for the former, yielding the ranking of attributes shown in Table6.8.

TABLE6.8: Johns Ranking ofthe Attributes Importance inFindingHarry

Individual likelihood > Timeliness > Speed of > Low cost
of success success

41. See, for instance (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[p.6465].

42. (Olson, 1996)[p.46].
43. See (Edwards & Barron, 1994)for ROCs in analyses with up to 16 attributes.

154 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 155

TABLE6.9: Weights ofthe Attributes inFindingHarry

Individual likelihood of success Timeliness Speed of success Low cost

0.521 0.271 0.146 0.063

Next, we assign a weight to each attribute. Referring to Table 6.7 and choosing the
column referring to four attributes yields the weights (see Table6.9).

6. Compute a weighted average score for each alternative. Next, we look at the
overall performance of each alternative by multiplying its value with the respec-
tive weight of the attribute and adding those. (Note: This assumes that the addi-
tive model is appropriate, which requires that attributes be independent from one
another.44) Table 6.10 shows the weighted scores of each alternative.
7. Make a provisional decision. The last column of Table 6.10 shows the ranking
of the courses of action as defined by our technique. We can use it to review the
model with the decision maker and discuss its appropriateness.
8. Perform a sensitivity analysis. Before committing to the decision, we should
evaluate how sensitive our results are with respect to changes in the model,
which will help us assess the robustness of our current ranking. Changing the
values in Table 6.10 shows that comparatively large changes in the performance
of each alternative on the attributes are needed to generate a change in our
ranking.45

TABLE6.10:
Evaluating thePerformance ofAlternatives and Weighting Attributes
Allows Us toRank theAttractiveness ofEach Alternative toGet HarryBack

Individual
likelihood Speed of Weighted
of success Timeliness success Low cost score Ranking
Weight 0.52 0.27 0.15 0.06
H1:Searching the 50 100 100 90 73 2
neighborhood
H3:Informing people likely to 100 100 80 100 97 1
know about missing animals
H4:Posting virtual 15 20 20 0 16 4
announcements
H5:Checking announcements 0 0 0 100 6 5
H6:Enabling Harry to come 30 90 100 100 61 3
back on his own

44. (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[p.46].

45. This is called a flat maxima, see (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[p.50].

Select a Solution 155

156

Although we presented the approach as a succession of stages, remember that the pro-
cess is not necessarily linear: it is perfectly acceptable to move backward as new insight
appears.46

3. MODIFY YOUR MAP ASYOUGO

Think of developing your solution map as charting an unknown territory between your cur-
rent position (your key question) and your destination (the solution[s]that you will end up
choosing). In that sense, your map is a dynamic document that evolves as you gather evi-
dence about your problem and form your conclusions. This means that you should capture
your progress in your map. For instance, as you rule out some hypotheses, you should cross
them out in the map; that is, keep them in the map for future reference, but signal that they
are no longer under consideration and explain why. Similarly, you can restructure branches
as you uncover new information and realize that your original layout is not appropriately
MECE or insightful.
Also, remember that once you have started your analysis, one of your maps important
contributions is to allow you to see where each item of information fits in the big picture,
thus helping ensure that you do not waste time on tangential or irrelevant issues. But this
works only if you consult the map. So, sticking with the road-map analogy, keep your map
visible and refer to it periodically.

4. CAPTURE QUICK AND SMALLWINS

In a study, psychologists Simons and Chabris had students watch a short video of a few
people passing around a basketball, instructing them to count the number of passes. During
the segment, an actor wearing a gorilla suit enters the picture, walks slowly, stops in the
middle of the screen, turns to face the camera, thumps his chest, and resumes his walk to
exit the picture. Although this whole episode is clearly visible to anyone watching the video
casually, a majority of the subjects in the study fail to see the gorilla!47 This study illustrates
how, while one is focused on one aspect of a problem, it is easy to miss something that,
under different circumstances, would be obvious.
Even the best analysis is just that, an analysis, and those do not solve problems.
Implemented solutions do. Abenefit of being methodical in your approach is that you in-
vestigate all the dimensions of your problem. Doing so, you look at parts of your operation
that you may not have really thought enough about, which may help you identify partial
victories along theway.

46. (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[pp.5455].

47. (Simons & Chabris, 1999), (Simons, 2000). The study is based on one by Becklen and Cervone (Becklen &
Cervone,1983).

156 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 157

Quick winsor the proverbial low-hanging fruitare improvements that can be pur-
sued easily and quickly and that, if you seize them, do not preclude you from pursuing an
overarching solution later on. They do not necessarily solve your entire problem but may
take you incrementally closer to where you want to be. Leadership consultant Michael
Watkins argues that quick wins, or wins secured early in ones tenure, build your credibility
and create momentum.48 Nobel laureate Medawar agrees: It is psychologically most impor-
tant to get results, even if they are not original.49
In Chapter4, we saw how serendipity required not just stumbling upon an unexpected
result but also recognizing its value. Capturing quick wins along your solution process is
similar in that it requires you to keep a soft focus.50
One way to secure quick wins is to target easy problems:some professional sport teams,
for instance, acquire a reputation of excellence not doing any better than others against
stronger opponents but by consistently beating below-average teams.51
Quick wins can be very positive:Van Buren and Safferstone, analyzing the performance
of newly promoted leaders, found that most top performers had managed to secure a quick
win early in their tenure.52 Indeed, in a setting where analysis can go on for weeks or longer,
being able to secure a victory, even a small one, can go a long way toward reassuring your
boss that putting you in charge was the right decision. It can also reassure your team that
you are not stuck in analysis paralysis, thereby helping to build much needed support and
momentum.
Van Buren and Safferstone also note, however, that the relentless pursuit of quick wins
may be counterproductive. Implementing quick wins is valuable as long as it does not sig-
nificantly distract resources from your main target and does not close off any of the alterna-
tives that you may want to pursue once you finish your analysis. Going from NewYork to
London, you probably should not buy a boat ticket before you have analyzed whether flying
serves your purpose better (that is, unless the consequences of buying a ticket that you will
end up not using are minimal; for instance, the ticket is easy to buy and fully refundable).
But you can, for instance, renew an out-of-date passport; that will not take much of your
time, and it will be useful in allcases.
So, when solving complex problems, it can be useful to visualize your actions as a
part of a portfolio:early in the resolution process, dedicate most of your effort to analy-
sis but consider keeping some bandwidth to pursue actions that might get you closer to
a solution without closing doors in the future. As you move forward in the resolution,
gradually decrease the attention you give to analysis to free up more resources to pursue
actions.
Consider adding small wins. Sometimes, the solution to your problem is a collection
of partial solutions. For instance, in some settings, serving a large number of clients each
buying a small quantity may be attractive. Indeed, Amazon has a competitive advantage

48. (Watkins,2004).
49. (Medawar, 1979)[p.17].
50. See, for instance (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [p.149150].
51. (Weick,1984).
52. (Van Buren & Safferstone,2009).

Select a Solution 157

158

Individual Cut-off for significant Cumulative

contribution individual contribution contribution

Actions with Actions with

significant individual lower individual
contributions contributions
Cumulative
value of
actions with
lower
individual
contributions

Action Action Action ...

1 2 3

FIGURE6.8:The cumulative value of solutions with lower individual contributions may be significant.

over brick-and-mortar booksellers in its ability to carry in its stock books that are low in
demand but that, in their ensemble, compound to a significant sales volume.53 You may
want to check whether the same dynamic might apply to your problem: perhaps there, too,
implementing a collection of partial solutions can result in a sizable cumulative effect (see
Figure 6.8).

5. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?
Having ranked the attractiveness of the various courses of action (Table 6.6), we performed
a sensitivity analysis to test the robustness of the results and reflect on their implications.
Our decision model recommended first informing people likely to know about missing ani-
mals before -2-searching the neighborhood, and -3-enabling Harry to come back on his
own. When our sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were robustthat is, it took
comparatively large changes in our assumptions to modify the rankingwe accepted these
results as a prioritization of our search activities.
So far, we have gone through the analysis part of our problem-resolution process:we
identified what problem we wanted to solve (Chapter1), why we were facing that problem
in the first place (Chapters2 to 4), and how we should resolve it (Chapters5 and 6). But
knowing how we can solve our problem is not enough. So, next, we need to implement the
solution(s) we have selected. This usually starts with convincing key stakeholders that our
conclusions are sound. That is the object of Chapter7.

53. (Anderson,2004).

158 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 159

NOTES
Phantom alternatives. The fifth option, checking announcements, although appearing
to be an actual option is not or, at least, is not until Harrys finder posts an announcement.
These illusory choices are called phantom alternatives.54
Making better decisions. Bazerman and Moore propose six concrete ways for making
better decisions: use decision-analysis tools, acquire expertise, debias your judgment,
reason analogically, take an outsiders view, and understand biases in others.55
More on decision tools. Anumber of tools can help you make decisions with multiat-
tributes. See, for instance (Olson, 1996)and (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)for a description
of alternatives. Our motivation for presenting only SMARTER is to keep things simple,
which is critical for adoption by practitioners.56
Evaluating performance of alternatives. Sometimes an attribute ranks naturally
against the convention of the larger number being preferredsuch as cost:intuitively an
alternative with a lower cost should be better than one with a larger one, everything else
being constant. Therefore, it makes sense to have the scores vary in that direction; that is,
low score is low cost, high score is high cost. To do so, one way is to reverse the attribute,
replacing cost by cheapness or lack of cost. This may help reduce cognitive load when
reviewing scores.

54. (Pratkanis & Farquhar,1992).

55. (Bazerman & Moore, 2008)[pp.179199].
56. (Rousseau, 2012)[p.68]; see also (Edwards & Barron, 1994)[p.310].

Select a Solution 159

160
 161

CHAPTER7

SELL THESOLUTION
COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY

General Stanley A.McChrystal, the leader of American and NATO forces

in Afghanistan, was shown a PowerPoint slide in Kabul last summer that
was meant to portray the complexity of American military strategy, but
looked more like a bowl of spaghetti.
When we understand that slide, well have won the war, General McChrystal
dryly remarked, one of his advisers recalled, as the room erupted in laughter.[]
Senior [military officers say a PowerPoint presentation] does come in handy when
the goal is not imparting information, as in briefings for reporters.
The news media sessions often last 25 minutes, with 5 minutes left at the end
for questions from anyone still awake. Those types of PowerPoint presentations,
Dr.Hammes said, are known as hypnotizing chickens.1

Effective problem resolution requires convincing key stakeholders that

your analysis and your conclusions are valid so that you can transition from your analysis
to implementation. As such, you must be able to summarize your findings in a message that
makes a persuasive argument.
Therefore, communicating your results is an integral part of your effort, one that is
worthy of careful consideration.2 You may communicate your conclusions in any one of sev-
eral types of media, but because presentations have become omnipresent in the workplace,
this chapter focuses on those. Note, however, that many of the themes discussed below are
equally relevant for other forms ofmedia.
Assembling a persuasive messagethat is, creating a compelling story and delivering it
effectivelyrequires using effective rhetoric and slide design. In general, the difficulty in
assembling such a message is not so much in our inability to use language as it is in identify-
ing what we want to say. This process starts with determining our objectives.

1. (Bumiller,2010).
2. (Keisler & Noonan,2012).
162

TABLE7.1:AFromTo/ThinkDo
Matrix Helps Clarify theChange We Want toInduce
inOur Audiences Thinking and Behavior withOur Presentation

From To
Think What they thinknow: What they should think after the
To recover Harry, we should search the presentation:
neighborhood right way. First, we should inform people likely to
know about missing animals that Harry
is missing.
Do What they do (or do not do)now: What they should do (or stop doing)
They are printing announcements to after the presentation:
distribute and post in the neighborhood. Speak with people likely to know about
missing animals.

1. DETERMINE YOUR OBJECTIVES

The first step in preparing your presentation should be to answer one question:How do you
want your presentation to change your audiences thinking and behavior? Indeed, if your audi-
ence is walking out of your presentation thinking and behaving as they did before, then what is
the point of having the presentation in the first place? Some argue that certain presentations are
merely informational and are not aimed at promoting change. Although mere information may
be the primary objective of some presentations, even those are usually also prescriptive, aiming
at promoting some change.3 For instance, a prototypical example of an informational presenta-
tion in a managerial setting is a progress report on a project, but even those aim at some change,
such as strengthening the audiences confidence in the management of the project.
Identifying the change we want in an audience is hard work, which may explain why we
default to thinking that some presentations are merely informational, when, in fact, they
are not. To help you identify the change you want in your audience, consider using Abelas
FromTo/ThinkDo matrix, which spells out where your audience currently is (in both
their thinking and behavior) and where you want your presentation to take them.4 Table 7.1
shows such a matrix for Harrys case.

2. TELL A COMPELLINGSTORY
Stories are powerful tools to drive people to take action. Harvard psychologist Howard
Gardner believes that ones ability to tell a story is a crucial component of successful lead-
ership.5 Using stories can greatly enhance your presentation for several reasons: Stories
create anticipation, thereby helping an audience maintain attention;6 they link the various

3. See, for instance, (Alley, 2003)[p.28].

4. (Abela, 2008)[p.31].
5. (Burke, 2014)[pp.293294].
6. (Alley, 2013)[pp.3539].

162 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 163

elements of even complex wholes, which creates a frame that enhances recollection;7 and
they introduce emotions, which also helps recollection.8
When it comes to crafting and delivering compelling stories, turning to the movie indus-
try can be inspirational. Robert McKee, a screenwriting lecturer, points out that storytelling
helps a presenter transcend merely intellectual arguments:Stories fulfill a profound human
need to grasp the patterns of livingnot merely as an intellectual exercise, but within a very
personal, emotional experience.9

2.1. PREPARING YOUR SL IDE DECK,

INA NUTSHELL
Before we dive into details, here is an overview of our approach to creating slide decks. Start
preparing your presentation by summarizing your story at a high level, as in Figure7.1.
Next, distribute this summary in taglines of slides, by placing one idea per slide, as in Figure
7.2. This will probably be an iterative process and you might find that some units of thought do
not belong to your main message. Rather than deleting those, just place them in an appendix.
Then populate the slides with the evidence that supports each of these taglines, as in
Figure 7.3. Ideally, this evidence comes in visualsphotos, drawings, graphs, etc.rather
than in writtenform.
In that sense, each slide becomes a self-contained capsule with an idea in its tagline and the
evidence supporting it in the body of the slide. That way, your slide deck becomes a central re-
pository of the information that you have collected. In addition, it is modular: You can move the
slides around to create a message crafted for a specific presentation and store in the appendix
whichever slides that are not necessary for that particular instance (see Figure 7.4).
Because your taglines amount to your storyline, someone reading only those should under-
stand your story completely. It is important to check periodically that this remains the case as
you assemble your slides and edit their taglines.

My friends dog, Harry, is missing and we need your help to find him.

Specifically, we have identified 6 major ways to get him back. Unfortunately, we dont have enough
resources to pursue all, therefore we need to prioritize. Our analysis shows that we should start
with enlisting others, so thats what well do.

Our analysis also suggests that taking action in the neighborhood is a very good mid-term
approach. Finally, well take some actions to enable him to come back on his own.

To implement successfully, we need your assistance; will you help?

FIGURE7.1: First, craft your storylinethe summary of your messagein a succinct story.

7. (Shaw, Brown, & Bromiley, 1998), (McKee & Fryer,2003).

8. (Abela, 2008)[p.65].
9. (McKee & Fryer, 2003). For more on storytelling, also see (Woodside, Sood, & Miller, 2008), (Barry & Elmes, 1997),
(Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001), (Kosara & Mackinlay,2013).

Sell the Solution 163

164

FIGURE7.2: Distribute your story onto taglines.

An important implication is that preparing an effective presentation takes time, in part, be-
cause assembling the reasons supporting your conclusions might help you identify gaps in your
logic. Given this, leave yourself ample time; ideally starting early in your project and capturing
your findings in slides as you goalong.
The rest of the chapter explains how to do this and gives some guidelines for the delivery of
the presentation.

2.2. USE THERI GHT K INDS OFARGUMENTS

The Western Australian government's shark-attack policy is heavily influenced by
"Jaws," the classic Hollywood thriller that's terrorized audiences since 1975
and that's a terrible, terrible thing, according to Christopher Neff, a public policy
lecturer at the University of Sydney's Department of Government and International
Relations.
In the movie, a great white with a taste for human flesh and a desire for revenge
slaughters residents of a New England beach town before it's eventually hunted down
and killed.
In real life, Neff argues, the government's imminent threat policy, which
was designed to catch and kill sharks in the wake of an attack, is predicated on
Hollywood fictionthe idea that once a shark has bitten someone, it will strike
again andagain.
Neff examined shark policies between 2000 and 2014 and found striking
similarities to the film. He has a name for the influence cinematic fiction plays on
real-life policy:The Jaws Effect.

164 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

FIGURE7.3:Then populate the body of the slides with the evidence that supports each tagline.
166

My friend's dog, Harry, is missing and we Specifically, we have identified six major Unfortunately, we do not have enough
need your help to find him ways to get him back resources to pursue all, therefore we need
to prioritize

Our analysis shows that we should start A study shows that 19% of pet owners
with enlisting others, so thats what we Appendix recover their dog by walking the
will do neighborhood

Move slides in and out of the appendix and modify their

order in the main deck to create the message that you want

FIGURE7.4: Use your slide deck as a central repository for your analysis, relegating to the appendix
whichever ideas are not needed for your presentation.

This policy is using myths as the basis for killing sharks that are protected by
law and which provides no real beach safety, Neff said in a statement. This fiction
serves an important political purpose because films allow politicians to rely on
familiar narratives following shark bites to blame individual sharks in order to make
the events governable and to trump evidence-based science.
The evidence, according to Neff, says that shark bites are rarely fatal and that
there is no such thing as a "rogue shark" that hunts humans. Since 1580, Neff said,
there have been a reported 2,569 shark-bite incidents off six of the seven continents
(some of the statistics are based on oral history), according to the International Shark
Attack File.10

Countless examples in our everyday life, and in our management of national affairs,
show that we often elect a course of action that is not the one we ought to adopt, if we were
basing our actions on an impartial look at the evidence and a logic-driven process.11 So ap-
pealing solely to an audiences logic may not be enough to persuade them to follow your
recommendation, irrespective of its foundational robustness.
Although logic has driven our actions in the resolution process up to here, effective per-
suasion is arguably best achieved by appealing to more than your audiences rationality:
Aristotelian persuasion relies on three pillarsethos (character/reputation/credibility),
pathos (emotions), and logos (logic) (see Figure 7.5)in addition to kairos (timing).12

10. (Holley,2014).
11. For instance, proposing to rely on evidence to guide policymaking is so unusual that it is newsworthy (see
[Dionne,2014]).
12. See, for instance (Giluk & Rynes-Weller, 2012) [p. 146148, 151], (McCroskey & Teven, 1999), (Alley,
2013)[pp.95101].

166 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 167

Emphasizing Emphasizing knowledge

intelligence
Emphasizing expertise

Emphasizing
character

Audience feels
Appeal to ethos/ethics communicator is
Audience feels: its credible concerned with them
and worthy
Audience feels
Emphasizing
Aristotelian communicator
goodwill
persuasion understands them

Audience feels
communicator has their
interests at heart

Appeal to pathos/emotions
Audience feels: it appeals to
me

Appeal to logos/logic
Audience feels: it makes
sense

FIGURE 7.5: Aristotelian persuasion has three pillars: ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethics, emotions, and logic; to persuade audiences, the Aristotelian way, they should feel
its credible and worthy, it appeals to me, and it makes sense.13
Emphasize your ethics/credibility/characterethos. Ethical appeal encompasses
putting forth your authority and credibility, including intelligence, character, and good-
will. It is conveyed by your tone, the style of your message, and your reputation.14 Ethos
can be powerful: sometimes, people accept a message based on who delivers it without
questioning the substance in depth.15 In an evidence-based setting, however, ethos-driven
persuasion should be the weakest: One should not trust a message only because of who
delivers it. In reality, this happens frequently, at least in some settings: For instance, the
popularity of management gurus who profess theories with little data to support their mes-
sage indicates a lack of questioning by executives.16 The takeaway is that, as a speaker, you
should use your ethos but not abuse it. Symmetrically, as an audience member, you should
question the arguments put in front of you, irrespective of the source.17
Although intuition would suggest that higher credibility results in higher persuasion, it
is not always so. Yalch and Elmore-Yalch found that greater expertise leads to greater per-
suasion only if the message includes quantitative information; they also warn that the use

13. (Konnikova,2014).
14. (Bartunek,2007).
15. This is an instance of persuasion through the peripheral route; see (Petty & Cacioppo,1984).
16. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006)[pp.4547].
17. (Sherman, 2002)[p.221]. See also Chapter2.

Sell the Solution 167

168

of quantitative information by people who are perceived as nonexperts undermines their

persuasion.18
One way to help build credibility is to not only present data that supports your claim but
present opposing claims and refute them convincingly. Paraphrasing McKee, it is the dark
side of a story that makes it interesting.19 By putting forth that not all is rosy, you expose
your own shortcomingsthereby highlighting your strong pointswhich makes your
story more compelling. Lawyers call this stealing thunder.20
Another way is to look your best:Attractive people are perceived to be more talented,
kind, able, and honest than unattractive people.21 So pay attention to your overall appear-
ance, including your clothes and grooming.
Appeal to your audiences rationalitylogos. Present your logic and the evidence
that led you to your conclusions. Your issue maps and analyses support logos. This is the nu-
cleus of our approach, so it is a necessary part of our report, but it is not sufficient, because
logics power to change peoples minds is limited. Indeed, as we have discussed, we suffer
from a number of biases, including giving unduly high credence to the evidence that sup-
ports our own position while discounting opposing evidence.22 Appealing to logic relates to
using the central route, which relies on direct, mindful, and information-based arguments.23
Appeal to your audiences emotionspathos. Emotions are a potent driver of actions
in human beings, so understand your audiences motivations and generate the emotions that
will sway them your way. The identified-victim effect, for instance, that leverages the increased
willingness of people to help to save a real person, rather than a statistical one, is a documented
instance of appealing to an audiences emotions. Goodwin and Wright note how the simple
addition of a picture and name of the child to a description of the childs illness elicits more
donations.24 McKee points out that uniting ideas with an emotion is a lot more effective than
just using logic:The best way to do that is by telling a compelling story. In a story, you not
only weave a lot of information into the telling but you also arouse your listeners emotions and
energy. Persuading with a story is hard. Any intelligent person can sit down and make lists. It
takes rationality but little creativity to design an argument using conventional rhetoric. But it de-
mands vivid insight and storytelling skill to present an idea that packs enough emotional power
to be memorable. If you can harness imagination and the principles of a well-told story, then you
get people rising to their feet amid thunderous applause instead of yawning and ignoring you.25
To be clear, Iam not advising that you use the three pillars of persuasion to induce your
audience into acting unethically or against their best interest. Indeed, our entire approach

18. (Yalch & Elmore-Yalch, 1984)[p.526], (Artz & Tybout, 1999)[p.52].

19. (McKee & Fryer,2003).
20. (Allen, 1991), (Williams, Bourgeois, & Croyle, 1993), (Arpan & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2005). See also (Pechmann,
1992), (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006)[pp.4748].
21. (Mobius & Rosenblat, 2006), (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991), (Langlois etal., 2000), (L. L.Thompson,
2012)[pp.163164]. See also (Brooks, Huang, Kearney, & Murray, 2014), (Zuckerman & Driver,1989).
22. (Nickerson,1998).
23. (L. L.Thompson, 2012)[p.156].
24. (Goodwin & Wright, 2009)[p.244].
25. (McKee & Fryer,2003).

168 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 169

assumes that you, the analyst, act ethically along the entire resolution process. However, given
that logic alone is sometimes insufficient to convince even rational people, Iam advising that
you should use multidimensional arguments to help bring about the needed change.26
Use a strong introduction. McKinseys director of visual communications, Gene
Zelazny, strongly advocates against dull introductions. Instead, he advises that introduc-
tions should light a fire under the audience, to arouse enthusiasm for being there, to build
anticipation for whats going to follow.27 Harvards Stephen Kosslyn agrees: if [during
the first five minutes of your presentation] you dont convince the audience that you have
something of value to say, you will be likely to lose them.28
To do so, Zelazny proposes that introductions include three elements:purpose, impor-
tance, and preview. Purpose explains why the audience is there, importance spells out why
resolving the issue today is critical, and preview gives the audience a summary of the struc-
ture of the presentation.29
Skillfully advise the decisionmakers. In those situations where you are reporting to
decisionmakers, keeping a few concepts in mind may help you. When presenting alterna-
tives, it appears to be better simply to provide information about the alternatives as opposed
to recommending for or against them directly.30 Similarly, people may follow your advice
more readily if it costs them something as opposed to if they received it for free.31 So it may
be worthwhile reminding your audience of the cost associated with your analysis.

2.3. FIND THERI GHTLENGTH

The length of your presentation is a function of the breadth of the material that you are
presenting and the level of detail at which you are presentingit.
Include all and only what is needed. Decide first which themes must be included and
which can be omitted. All noncritical slides can go to the appendix, where they will be ready
to help you answer potential questions.
Having spent days, weeks, or months analyzing an issue, it is easy to want to include many
details, but this comes at a price. Because your audience has limited processing capabilities,
including superfluous information is detrimental.32 Indeed, Alley observes that, in technical
settings, many presentations fail because the presenter aims at covering too much material.33
So, in a way, your choice may not be whether you want to use your presentation to solve
multiple issues but whether you want your overriding recommendation to go through or

26. Apersuasive argument is not necessarily valid and vice versa. For a discussion, see (Schum, 1994)[pp.2223].
27. (Zelazny, 2006)[pp.5355].
28. (Kosslyn, 2007)[p.25].
29. (Zelazny, 2006)[pp.5355].
30. (Dalal & Bonaccio,2010).
31. (Gino,2008).
32. This is known as the coherence principle in multimedia learning (Mayer & Fiorella, 2014). See further down in this
chapter.
33. (Alley, 2013)[pp.5967].

Sell the Solution 169

170

FIGURE7.6: Identify the right level of detail for the specific presentation that you are preparing.

not. Side points tax your audiences working memory and may lead them to not understand
critical parts or remember what you want them to remember.
Select the right level of detail. Former McKinsey consultant and communication spe-
cialist Barbara Minto recommends that you organize your communication in pyramids,
placing your main idea at the top.34 That main idea is your executive summary, the essence
of your communication.
Right below your executive summary are your main points, and right below those are
supporting points, which may come at various levels, until you get to your hypotheses and
analysis. The more you drill down, the more details. Whereas communicating your main
point might only take a few seconds and might be suitable for an elevator pitch, showing the
details of your analysis might require hours or even days (see Figure7.6).
So, crafting your message, you should think about the right level of detail for each part of
your communication. This is a function of the time it will take to deliver as well as your per-
ception of how much evidence will be needed to convince your audience on each point. It is
perfectly acceptable to cover different subjects at different levels of detail, as long as this is the
result of a conscious decision, and not because, for instance, you grossly overestimated your
ability to cover material swiftly and end up spending 80% of your allotted time talking about
the first of your five subjects. Thinking of your communication as a pyramid can help you keep
an eye on the big picture of your message, thereby helping you identify where all pieces fit.

2.4. FIND A GOOD SEQUENC E

Zelazny recommends starting your communication with your conclusion and only then
explaining how you reached it.35 In an analysis we start from data to reach a conclusion.

34. (Minto,2009).
35. (Zelazny, 2006)[pp.4546].

170 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 171

Effective
Analysis
communication

FIGURE7.7: Resist the temptation to report your analysis process in your communication.

However, if you start with the conclusion, you are going the other way around (see
Figure 7.7). This requires foregoing a chronological account of how you solved the
problem.
This is to say, your communication should emphasize how your logic and evidence
led you to your conclusions. For instance, in Harrys case, you may start your presentation
with Today, Id like to explain why we should look for Harry by, first, contacting people
likely to know about missing animals and gain your assistance in doing so. Here is why
rather than To identify how to best search for Harry, first Ilooked for published articles
on effective ways to find lost dogs, then Isearched for means that are specific to Harrys
neighborhood,etc.
As an illustration of the benefit of starting with your conclusion, consider Figure 7.8, a
memo written by Tom, a midlevel manager, to his bossJim.36
Tom is recreating his analysis in chronological order. He is walking Jim through all the
steps that led him to take his decision. The problem is that Jim does not know where Tom
is going until he reads the last paragraph. So he is getting a download of information but
does not know how to react to iteach bit produces the reaction okay, so what?that
he needs to store in his working memory. Finally, when he gets to the conclusion, he can
understand how the various parts articulate and decide whether that makes sense but
by then he may have forgotten the details of each argument. So, having finally understood
what the conclusion is, Jim may very well have to reread the message to understand how the
various pieces fit together to supportit.

36. This example is an adaptation of Zelaznys (Zelazny, 2006)[pp.4647].

Sell the Solution 171

172

From: Tom

To: Jim

Subject: Update on hiring assistant

Jim,

As you know, I have been looking for an assistant that can help me with managing projects for our
Latin American clients. I have been thinking about what you and I discussed and, since we need
to interact frequently with Spanish speakers, I think that the person should be fluent in Spanish.
Also, I am getting overflowed with projects and I need some help organizing our human and
technological resources. Plus I just cant go to all the sites where we are, so I need that person to
be able to travel.

Anyway, Ive been looking for the right person for some time, and I have interviewed quite a few
candidates. I was getting desperate because, for the salary we are ready to pay, I couldnt find
someone that matched my criteria. Finally, Ed from Marketing, advised me to speak with Emma,
a friend of his who he was working with before he joined the company. After resolving some time
conflict, Emma and I finally got a chance to talk.

And, when we did, I realized that she meets all my requirements, so Im going to hire her. I just
wanted to let you know.

FIGURE7.8: Putting your conclusion at the end of your message can be confusing for your audience
because they must keep in mind all the items presented without knowing how they work together.

As an alternative, consider an alternative construction (Figure 7.9), where the conclu-

sion comes before the justification.
Jim might not agree with Toms logic: maybe he disagrees that these three criteria are the
ones that Tom should consider. Or maybe he thinks that Tom should check Emmas refer-
ences. Or perhaps he thinks that some of these criteria are incomplete: Emma is willing to
travel. Great! But is she able? So he might have problems with Toms reasoning, but he will

From: Tom
To: Jim
Subject: FYI only: Im hiring Emma The subject line FYI: Im hiring
as my assistant summarizes the Emma as my
message. assistant

Dear Jim,
I am hiring Emma as my assistant The conclusion
because she meets all my criteria: comes before the
justification.
She speaks Spanish,
She can manage projects, She speaks She can manage She is willing to
Spanish projects travel
She is willing to travel.
No action is needed from you, I just
wanted to let you know.

FIGURE7.9:The message can be clarified by starting with the conclusion and then presenting the
support forit.

172 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 173

not have problems understanding what it is. Now that he knows where Tom is coming from,
he can react constructively.
By putting your conclusion first, and getting rid of unnecessary information, you make
the messages pyramid apparent, thereby simplifying the audiences job. Knowing what your
conclusion is, they can interpret each new element that appears and decide whether it sup-
ports your argument.
Although describing your analysis process may be advisable in some specific in-
stancessay, describing a scientific experiment whose conclusions are unconvincing to
the audienceinformation analysis specialists Keisler and Noonan advise that it should
be resisted in almost all situations.37 Zelazny agrees: He recommends using the conclu-
sion-first approach even if you know you will face significant pushback from the audience.38
There, you may start off by acknowledging the disagreement: The point of my talk today
is to convince you to look for Harry by first contacting people who may know where he is.
I know this goes against the general consensus and that you think that we should first post
flyers and search the neighborhood, but we reached this conclusion after carefully analyzing
all options. Let me show you how we got there.

3. USE EFFECTIVE SLIDEDESIGN

Slide presentations have been heavily criticized and, in many instances, rightfully so.39
However, in the right setting and with appropriate design, presentations can be a highly ef-
fective tool to support your communication. Keisler and Noonan argue that the key factor
for success is to ensure that you, the presenter, rather than the software, drives the commu-
nication through a clear storyline and good slide design.40

3.1. DEFINE THEPRIMARY PURPOSE OF

YOUR SL IDEDECK
Presentations answer a continuum of needs, from a visual support for your message during
the presentation to a stand-alone record of the information for future reference. What con-
stitutes an optimal slide design depends on this primary objective, so there is no one single
good slide design (see Figure 7.10). If you are looking for a visual support only, you may
decide to show fewer details, leaving these for you to present orally. On the other hand,
if your slide decks primary intent is a stand-alone record, you may need to specify these
details.

37. (Keisler & Noonan,2012).

38. (Zelazny, 2006)[p.51].
39. See, for instance (Edward R Tufte,2003).
40. (Keisler & Noonan,2012).

Sell the Solution 173

174

Visual support for Postpresentation

presentation record

Presents main ideas only, not Presents main ideas and

details supporting details

Has few words on slides Differences May have more words on

(<~40) slides

Uses large fonts Uses various font sizes to

show the pyramid on the
May use more photos slide

Is self-sufficient Is self-sufficient
Uses assertion-evidence Similarities Uses assertion-evidence
structure structure

FIGURE7.10: Presentations answer a continuum of needs, which should impact slide design.

Of course, in many cases, a slide deck serves both purposes and you end up somewhere
between these extremes. So it is important that you identify the primary goal of your slide
deck and ensure it leans toward the appropriate extreme.
In both cases, my personal experience agrees with the results of studies by Alley, Garner,
and others,41 who find that summarizing each slide in a full-sentence tagline is more effec-
tive than using titles or topics. In turn, ensuring that the taglines work together to tell the
story you aim to convey ensures that people will be able to understand the main ideas of the
slide deck without a presenter.
Understand the two extremes and decide where you need to be. Figure 7.11 shows
two extremes of slide design. The slide on the left, from Garr Reynolds, follows a minimalist
design often seen in TED Talks. These slides often have a large image and very few, if any,
words.42 TED slides are effective to communicate to the general public.43 In these slides, the
photo and the text indicate to the audience the general idea of the slide, but the presenter
is indispensable to extract the so what? The implication is that this approach restricts
your slide presentation to being only a visual support, and there is a risk that your audience
misses your message if they happen to not pay attention for a while during the presentation,
or if they miss the presentation altogether and refer to the slide later on. Furthermore the
visual message must remain at a high level, with few details and nuances communicated.
On the other hand, management consultants have mastered the use of slide presenta-
tions for establishing a postpresentation record in addition to providing visual support for
their presentation. The slide on the right, from the Boston Consulting Group, has a much
more analytic appearance than Reynolds. Also, compared with TED slides, the message is
more complex and oriented, no doubt, to an audience with a much better understanding
of the subject matter. This design enables you to capture many more details and nuances.
The TED and the consultant-structure slides represent two extreme ends of a spectrum.
They just happen to use one common medium, slides, to do two very different things. So,

41. See, for instance (Alley, 2013)[pp.105128], ( J. Garner & Alley, 2013), (Alley & Neeley,2005).
42. (Duarte, 2008, 2010; Reynolds, 2011), (Alley, 2013)[p.184].
43. (Alley, 2013)[p.172].

174 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

FIGURE7.11: Slide decks can have various purposes; their primary objective, rather than personal preferences, should dictate the slide design.
176

rather than letting your personal preference guide your choice of slide design, you should op-
timize your slide deck for the specific use you want from it. And, irrespective of its use, your
presentation should comply with the six critical principles of designing instructional slides.

3.2. ADHERE TOTHE S I X CRI T I CAL PRINC IPLES

OFDES I GNING INSTRUCT I ONALSL IDES
Adhering to six multimedia principles of instructional slide design can improve compre-
hension, reduce misconceptions, and reduce the perceived cognitive load of your audi-
ence.44 These principlesare:

1. The multimedia principle states that people learn better from words and pictures
than from words alone.45
2. The contiguity principle states that you should minimize spacial and temporal sepa-
ration between various forms of information because this makes it easier for the
audience to see connections.46
3. The redundancy principle states that individuals benefit from complementary, but
not identical, information presented visually and aurally.47
4. The modality principle states that people learn better when the words are spoken
rather than printed.48
5. The coherence principle states that you should remove all nonessential information
to help the audience integrate critical relationships and concepts.49
6. Finally, the signaling principle states that you should provide your audience with
cues to help them understand the structure of your presentation and how the
concepts interrelate.50

3.3. USE ANASSERT I ONE V IDENC E STRUCTURE

Originally developed for scientific, engineering, and business communication, the
assertionevidence slide structure consists of using a declarative sentence, as opposed to a
title, in the tagline of a slide and presenting evidence in the body of the slide that supports
the assertion.51 Here is how to make itwork.

44. ( J. Garner & Alley, 2013); see also (Mayer & Fiorella,2014).
45. (Butcher,2014).
46. (Mayer & Fiorella,2014).
47. (Mayer & Fiorella,2014).
48. (Mayer & Pilegard,2014).
49. (Mayer & Fiorella,2014).
50. (van Gog,2014).
51. ( J. Garner & Alley,2013).

176 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 177

The tagline is the main Our sales are growing

idea of the slide in the
form of a full assertion
not just a title.
Sales (M$)

32
The slides body shows
(preferably with visuals, 23
rather than text) 17 19
evidence that supports
its tagline.

2007 2008 2009 2010

FIGURE7.12: Use an assertionevidence structure in which the tagline is a full declarative sentence and
the body of the slide presents evidence that supportsit.

Present one idea per slide. Think of each slide as a unit of thought and present just one
idea per slide. If it is a complex idea, you can break it down over two or three slides if that
makes it simpler for your audience.
Use the tagline to spell out the slides main idea in a declarative sentence. An effec-
tive slide should enable the audience to quickly identify the point of the slide. One way to
do this is to put the main point of the slidethe assertionin the tagline and use the body
of the slide to provide supporting evidence, primarily using visual evidencephotos, draw-
ings, graphs, etc. (see Figure 7.12)as opposed to text.52 With this structure, the tagline
expresses what the data means for the audienceits so what?rather than what the data
isits what.53 It also helps the slide presentation comply with the principles of redun-
dancy, coherence, and signaling.54 Compared with other slide designs, this approach has
been shown to enable audiences to better understand and remember the content of com-
plex presentations.55 Penn State professor of engineering communications Michael Alley
advises that the tagline should be no more than two lines, left-justified, and capitalized as a
sentence (with periods being optional).56
PowerPoint and other presentation packages do not make it easy to have a sentence ta-
gline:In their templates, the slides top element is called a title, and accommodating in that
space a sentence that might be 10 or 20 words long takes some formatting effort. Perhaps
as a result, a majority of presenters do not use sentences in taglines but instead use a top-
phrase headline or title supported by bullet points.57 This is problematical because such a
title does not convey sufficient information:it might give some indication as to the content

52. (Alley, 2003, 2013; Alley & Neeley, 2005), (Doumont, 2005; Keisler & Noonan,2012).
53. (Doumont, 2009)[p.99].
54. ( J. Garner & Alley, 2013). This is related to the concept of unity in rhetoric; see, for instance (Roche, 1979)[pp.24].
55. (Alley, 2013)[pp.119120], ( J. K.Garner, Alley, Wolfe, & Zappe, 2011), ( J. Garner & Alley,2013).
56. (Alley, 2013)[p.131].
57. ( J. K.Garner etal., 2011), ( J. Garner & Alley,2013).

Sell the Solution 177

178

of the slide, but it does not make a significant contribution of its own. As such, this approach
has been criticized by academics and practitioners alike.58
When writing your taglines, strive to make your message as clear as possible for your audience.
This may prove difficult, but it is necessary. In the words of venture capitalist Guy Kawasakia
person who spends a fair share of his life sitting in presentations: The significance of what youre
saying is not always self-evident, let alone shocking and awe-inspiring.59 Cambridge mathema-
tician Michael Thompson agrees: A good rule of thumb, for most of us, is to be about twice
as explicit as seems necessary.60 The observation also applies in movies: Truffaut wrote that
clarity is the most important quality in the making of a film (italics his).61 Director Alexander
Mackendrick observes that clarity is the communication of essential and the exclusion of the
non-essential, no simple matter at all, since it can be tricky to decide what is not really essential
and then find a way to reduce emphasis on such things. It can take great ingenuity and consider-
able insight to isolate what is important (and, therefore, must be retained, even accentuated) in
material that is confused or overcomplicated by irrelevancies and banalities.62
When choosing a tagline, recognize that several ideas can summarize the same data and
choose an insightful one. Avoid static assertions (also called blank assertions):sentences that
do summarize the content of the slide but that do not open links to at least one other idea in
your message (see Figure 7.13).63
Using taglines as full declarative sentences has several major advantages:

Sentence taglines foster recall. Empirical evidence shows that using sentences in taglines
improved the audiences recollection of details after technical presentations.64
Sentence taglines help your audience orient itself during the presentation. Confronted with
a new slide, your audience immediately tries to understand why it is there; capturing
the point of the slide in its tagline helps them doso.65
Sentence taglines help you improve your logic. By having to interpret your data and
summarize it in a short statement, you are forced to think in depth about what you
are presenting.66 Does the data make sense? Is this conclusion really what the data is
showing? Is this really what Ishould be showing?
Sentence taglines help you build a compelling story. Because your taglines as a whole amount
to your storyline, you can easily identify mismatches between your overall story and
the evidence that you present. This also helps you eliminate irrelevant information
and pinpoint any that is missing.67

58. In technical communication, see (Doumont, 2005), (Alley & Neeley, 2005); in multimedia learning theory, see
( J. Garner & Alley,2013).
59. (Kawasaki, 2004)[p.46].
60. ( J. M.T. Thompson,2013).
61. (Truffaut & Scott, 1983)[p.17].
62. (Mackendrick, 2004)[p.32].
63. See (Roche,1979).
64. (Alley, Schreiber, Ramsdell, & Muffo, 2006), ( J. K.Garner etal.,2011).
65. (Alley, 2003)[p.126].
66. (Alley, 2013)[pp.132133].
67. (Alley, 2013)[pp.133137].

178 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 179

(a) (b)

We can increase profits in two ways We can increase profits by increasing

revenues or reducing costs

$40M $40M
$50M $50M

$10M $10M

Profits = Revenues Costs Profits = Revenues Costs

Increase Decrease Increase Decrease

The assertion is static/blank: it summarizes The assertion is dynamic/constructive: it

the evidence in the slide but does not bring links to other ideas such as, in this case,
any value. more detail.

FIGURE 7.13: In taglines, avoid static assertionsthose statements that are correct but add little value;
instead, favor assertions that link to other ideas.

Sentence taglines enable you to deliver your presentation in a fraction of the time. If you
have ever been in a situation where you were told to prepare a slide deck for a
60-minute presentation only to be told a few minutes before the presentation that,
because a crisis arose, you now only had 15 minutes, you know the value of being
able to present your message at various levels of detail. Effective taglines enable you
to accommodate these situations. Presenting only taglinesthat is, presenting your

FYI: Im hiring Emma as my

assistant

She speaks Spanish She can manage projects She is willing to travel

FIGURE7.14: Using effective taglines enables you to go through your presentation at a more conceptual
level, should you needto.

Sell the Solution 179

180

message at a higher level in the pyramid (see Figure 7.14)enables you to retain the
integrity of your story while going through the slide deck much more quickly.
Sentence taglines lay out the groundwork for a better discussion. The tagline enables your
audience to understand your interpretation of the slides evidence by reading one
sentence. They may disagree with that interpretation, but at least they understand it.
The discussion can then focus on the essence of your message; for instance, finding
a shared interpretation of the evidence, rather than on clarifying misunderstandings.
Sentence taglines help you build a powerful reference deck. A key decisionmaker may not be in
the room when you present. Or someoneincluding you!may want to get back to the
presentation after a few weeks. Having captured the so what? of each slide in its tagline,
it is easier to understand the essence of the message without the presenter. To be clear,
using an assertionevidence structure in your presentation does not remove the need for
the presenter. Although the essence of the message is understandable just by looking at
the slides, the presenter still plays an important role through emphasizing key aspects,
providing more details, answering questions, making the content livelier, and so on.

3.4. USE ANEFFECT I VE DES I GN FORTHE BODY

OFTHESL IDE
Slide design may be thought of by differentiating two aspects:the overall design of the slide
and the characteristics of the visuals that youuse.

3.4.1. DESIGN YOUR SLIDES TOFACILITATE COMPREHENSION

The primary driver for the design of your slides should be to help your audience understand
your story. Following are some guidelines to help youdoso.
Doumont proposes that an effective slide is one that meets three goals: it adapts to
the audience, maximizes signal-to-noise ratio, and uses effective redundancy.68 Table 7.2
explains what that means for slide design.
He summarizes the challenge of creating effective slides as expressing a message unam-
biguously with as little text as possible.
Use a consistent template. Keeping with the notion that slide design should promote
the audiences understanding, use a consistent set of overall layouts, backgrounds and text
colors, font size, font type, etc. all along your presentation.69 Use the sameor, if not pos-
sible because of space constraints, similarfont size for all taglines. Use the same place-
ment for slide numbers on each slide. Physicist Michael McIntyre makes a strong argu-
ment that needless variation is akin to bad road signposting, which would use different
names for the same place. He goes on to say that gratuitous variation is like the original
control room displays of the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor [where] the colour coding

68. (Doumont, 2005)[p.68].

69. (Doumont, 2005)[pp.99102].

180 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 181

TABLE 7.2: Characteristics of Effective Slides and Implicationsa

Effective slide design should To do so, slides should

Adapt to the audience Focus on what the information means to that audience (the so
what?) rather than just presenting information.
Maximize signal-to-noise Have as little text as possible to avoid competing with the
ratio audiences attention (which relates to the multimedia, modality,
and coherence principles).

Use effective redundancy Be stand-alone (as the presenters spoken text):deaf audience
members should understand the message by only looking at the
slides and blind members should also be able to understand it
by listening only.
a
After (Doumont, 2005).

to distinguish normal from abnormal functioning was varied, as in a traffic system whose
red lights sometimes mean stop and sometimes go.70
Use colors effectively. Colors may help people extract information from a display,
but their use must be judicious.71 In particular, their use should be driven by functionality,
rather than cosmetics.72 In communication expert Nancy Duartes words, practice design,
not decoration.73 Use colors sparingly and ensure that there is sufficient contrast between
the forefront elements (text, graphics, table, etc.) and the slide background.74 Also, leverage
conventions: To anyone with a drivers license, green means go/good and red means stop/
bad. Also blue is cold, yellow is warmer, red is warmest, white is pure, etc. And keep in mind
that using irrelevant colors is harmful.75
Use large-enough fonts. Make sure you use large font or be prepared to lose your audi-
ence. Alley recommends using type size of 28 point type for the tagline and 18 to 24 points
for the body of the slide (assuming a bolded font),76 while Kawasaki recommends using
no font less than 30 points in size or less than the age of the oldest audience member
divided by two.77 This is easy for a presentation designed to be primarily a visual support,
but it may be challenging for ones that are designed to be a detailed record. In either case,
do not project anything that your audience cannotread.
Use proper font types. Serif typefacesthose with small lines attached to the end of
lettersare argued by some to work better for documents with lots of text because they
help the eye see letters as groups.78 Some studies, however, have shown that sans serif

70. (McIntyre,1997).
71. (Hoadley, 1990)[p.125], (Abela, 2008)[p.103].
72. (Zelazny,1996).
73. (Duarte, 2008)[p.259].
74. (Alley, 2013)[pp.159161], (Doumont,2005).
75. (Abela, 2008)[pp.103104].
76. (Alley & Neeley, 2005), (Alley, 2013)[pp.132,138]. See also (Berk,2011).
77. (Kawasaki,2008).
78. (Mackiewicz, 2007a).

Sell the Solution 181

182

typefaces (Arial, Gill Sans, Tahoma, Verdana, Calibri, etc.) perform better than serif ones
on four dimensions:comfortable to read, professional, interesting, and attractive. In one
study, Gill Sans scored well in all categories, and Jo Mackiewicz, a professor of professional
communication at Iowa State University, recommends it for use on slides.79
Draw attention with bold characters. Stay away from italic and underlined text; italics
can be difficult to read and underlined text adds noise, which complicates recognition.80 Also,
avoid exclusive use of capital letters, which slow reading and take more space than traditional
typeset.81 You also may decide to write numbers with digits, as opposed to spelling them out,
given that this reduces the number of characters on the slide and offers a visual anchor.
Use a clear and concise style. Novelist George Orwell offered advice on writing:

(i)Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing
inprint.
(ii) Never use a long word where a short one willdo.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut itout.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v)Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an
everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.82

Orwells directives align with Cornell English professor William Strunks own recom-
mendationsincluding his beautifully efficient omit needless words.83 To help you do so,
Table 7.3 shows some common instances of bloating and alternatives for them.
Avoid redundancy of written and oral text. Simultaneous presentation of identical
written and oral material interferes with, rather than helps, the presentation and is less ef-
ficient than auditory-only text.84 This is because such redundancy of information requires
coordination, which is highly taxing on the audiences working memory.85 Therefore, except
for your taglines, you should have as little text as possible on your slidesuse visuals in-
stead of bullet points, for instance.86
Do not write sideways. Unless you want your audience to stretch their neck muscles,
do not force them to tilt their heads to read your visuals.

79. (Mackiewicz, 2007a). See also (Alley, 2013)[pp.132, 154155]. However, the superiority of sans serif fonts is dis-
puted; see (Abela, 2008)[p.102] for a discussion.
80. (Alley & Neeley, 2005), (Alley, 2013)[pp.132,155].
81. (Alley & Neeley,2005).
82. (Orwell, 1970)[p.139].
83. (Strunk, 2015)[p.27].
84. (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 2004), ( Jamet & Le Bohec, 2007), (Mayer, Heiser, & Lonn, 2001), (Mayer & Fiorella,
2014)[p.279].
85. (Kalyuga & Sweller, 2014). See also (Kalyuga, Chandler, & Sweller, 2000):the most advantageous format when in-
structing inexperienced learners in a domain was a visually presented diagram combined with simultaneously presented
auditory explanations.
86. (Doumont,2005).

182 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 183

TABLE7.3: Avoid Bloating

Do not use Use

in order to to
in the event of if
each and every each
forward progress progress
merge together merge
goals and objectives goals (or objectives)
prior to before
utilize use
personal opinion opinion
in reference to about
the reason for because

Keep slides simple. During the presentation, your slides should support your message
visually and facilitate its memorization. As such, they should not compete with you, the pre-
senter, who remains the primary conveyor of information. Simple slides are more effective be-
cause visual complexity reduces peoples ability to pass on information to long-term memory.87
Remove everything unnecessary. Adhering with the principle of coherence, and in
line with the previous point, remove all unnecessary information so as to help improve un-
derstanding and recall.88 This includes removing all information that can distract from the
main point of the slide, including references, the logo of the organization if it is an internal
presentation, animations that only serve a cosmetic purpose, etc. Applying the principle of
coherence to numbers, use decimals only when absolutely necessary. In fact, use the unit
that allows you to have the smallest number of digits to represent the quantity.
Format tables. Pie charts and bar charts have been found superior to tables in many in-
stances.89 In some cases, however, such as when trying to transmit precise numerical values,
tables can be a good medium to present quantitative data. To leverage them, eliminate un-
necessary lines, such as vertical lines between columns, round off numbers, and use proper
units (see Figure 7.15).90
Consider using analogies. Using appropriate analogies can enhance understanding
and retention, because they can relate new ideas to ones with which that your audience is
familiar.91
For instance, imagine having to report the financial results of a division to a nonspecialist
audience. Instead of using a dull table, one could opt for an image, such as that of Figure 7.16.

87. See (Bergen, Grimes, & Potter, 2005)[p.333] and (Kalyuga & Sweller, 2014)[p.259].
88. (Mayer & Fiorella, 2014), (Alley, 2013)[pp.112113], (Bartsch & Cobern,2003).
89. (Spence & Lewandowsky,1991).
90. (Booth, Colomb, & Williams, 2003)[p.220], (Koomey, 2008)[pp.177185].
91. (Alley, 2013)[pp.3941].

Sell the Solution 183

184

FIGURE7.15: Using appropriate borders and number format can significantly enhance the legibility of
tables.

After steadily increasing revenues over the past few

years, we have now reached profitability for the first time

Profit

Break-even
4M$

Fixed 20M$
costs 17M$
(9M$)
14M$

Variable 9M$
costs
(8M$) 5M$
Loss 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
2007
Costs Revenues

FIGURE7.16: Using images may help your audience remember your message.

Using a submarine to represent the division and the water level to show cost, the depth
of the submarine becomes its position with respect to breaking even (the surface). The
goal is then for the submarine to surface to take air, or generate profits. We used this anal-
ogy to provide quarterly reports over several presentations about a division that had never

184 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 185

generated a profit over its 30-year existence. Even though there were months between suc-
cessive presentations, the image helped the audience instantly recall the topic and how the
new position fit with respect to historical ones. At the end of 2006, the division made its
first profit, so the submarine became a seaplane:From that day on, everyone in the audience
understood and remembered that the division was profitable.
Close on a high. The final slide is usually the one that remains projected during the
ensuing conversation; as such, it is premium real estate. Therefore, avoid the common prac-
tice of just writing thank you or questions? Instead, use the final slide to summarize your
main points.92

3.4.2. USE THERIGHT VISUAL SUPPORT

Several options are available to display evidence, including quantitative charts, concept
visuals, tables, photos, text, or a combination of these. Each option has its strengths and
limitations.
Using text in the body of a slide goes against the modality principle,93 so avoid it if pos-
sible. At times, however, a text support may be necessary; for instance, it can be useful to
guide your audience through a logicflow.
Use good quantitative charts. Quantitative charts can be an excellent way to present
data. You should choose the format of your quantitative chart based on your communica-
tion goal.94
Various resources can help you choose when to use charts and how to select appropriate
ones.95 Figure 7.17 provides some guidance adapted from these sources.
Avoid pseudo-3D graphics. Use 3D graphics only when they are necessary; that is, when
presenting three variables at once. The 3D rendering of bar charts (or pseudo-3D effect),
for instance, which comes standard in presentation packages, only presents two dimensions.
Although these have been found at times to be visually appealing, they add complexity, which
slows down comprehension. As such, they should generally be avoided (see Figure 7.18).96
Format bar charts to improve their legibility. Columns and line charts are useful to
represent time series. Columns are best to represent series with few data points and when
data is discrete, such as per period of time. When the number of data points increase or
when the data is continuous, consider a line chart.97
Proper formatting of bar charts enhances legibility, as Figure 7.19 shows. In particular,
resorting to a horizontal bar chartinstead of a vertical (column) chartwhenever the
labels are long leaves you more space to write on the slide.98

92. (Alley, 2013)[pp.181183].

93. (Mayer etal., 2001), (Mayer, 2014)[p.8], (Kalyuga & Sweller, 2014)[p.255], ( J. Garner & Alley,2013).
94. (Shah & Hoeffner,2002).
95. See (Zelazny, 1996), (Abela, 2008)[p.99], (Visual-literacy.org), (Analytics), ( Jarvenpaa & Dickson,1988).
96. (Forsyth & Waller, 1995; Shah & Hoeffner, 2002), (Fischer, 2000) [p. 161], (Mackiewicz, 2007b), (Duarte,
2008)[pp.7677].
97. See (Abela, 2008)[p.99].
98. (Zelazny, 1996)[p.35].

Sell the Solution 185

186

Parts of a whole Trend/time series Comparison Frequency Others

Waterfall Line (continuous Stacked bars Line Bubble

data) R6

R5 R3
R1
R4
R3
R4 R2
R2

R1
Total R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R3 R5 R7 R9 R11 R1 R3 R5 R7 R9 R11

Pie Bar (discrete Radar Histogram Scatter

data)
R1
R4
R2
R5 V
R3 R1

R2
R4 R3
R
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5

FIGURE7.17: Choose appropriate quantitative charts for the data you are presenting.

Our sales are growing Our sales are growing

Sales (M$) Sales (M$)

32 32
17 19 23 23
17 19

2007
2008
2009
2010 2007 2008 2009 2010

Pseudo-3D charts add unnecessary ... therefore it is preferable to use 2D

complexity to slides, which slows down charts
comprehension...

FIGURE7.18: Because they add unnecessary complexity, avoid pseudo-3D charts.

The space in between bars is also important. For instance, Yau warns that setting it close
to the bar width can result in confusion.99 Removing all unnecessary lines may also further
reduce clutter. Finally, including the value label of the data set in each column may help data
reading and memorization.

99. (Yau,2011).

186 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 187

Headcount by area

60 Including the
Removing value of the data
45 unnecessary lines helps data
enhances legibility. retention.

30

15 Headcount by area (FTEs)

0
Marketing Manufacturing Accounting Legal Marketing 17

Manufacturing 26
Removing
unnecessary Using a horizontal
values labels format leaves more
space for long labels. Accounting 53
reduces clutter.

Legal 25

Data-ink: the non-erasable core of a Remove all non-data-ink and

chart, the non-redundant ink used to redundant data-ink, within reason, to
represent the info. increase the data-ink-ratio.

FIGURE7.19: Proper formatting of bar charts enhances legibility.

Contribution of each reason to problem

3%
4% 100%
5%
6%

10% 80%

17%

17%

38%

Reason 1 Reason 2 Reason 3 Reason 4 Reason 5 Reason 6 Reason 7 Others Total

FIGURE7.20: Waterfall charts can show the parts of a whole and how they accumulate.
188

Alignment with
current strategy
(want)
Potential annual
payoff

High Project
P3 1
>$5M

>
Medium $2M
P2
Project
4
<$1M

Alignment with current

Low
capabilities (can)
Low Medium High
Variable 1: Axis 1 Variable 4 (not pictured): Shape of bubble
Variable 2: Axis 2 Variable 5 (not pictured): Color of bubble
Variable 3: Size of bubble

FIGURE7.21: Bubble charts can show up to five variables.

Use a waterfall chart to represent parts of a whole. The waterfall chart (sometimes
called progressive chart) is a bar chart that is useful to represent the parts of a whole.
Although pie charts are traditionally used in these situations, waterfall charts may be a
good substitute because they can signal thresholds, such as when you reach a given per-
centage, which is useful to illustrate the Pareto principle (see Figure7.20).
Use a bubble chart to represent data that depends on more than two variables.
When representing a data set that depends on several variables, consider using a bubble
chart (see Figure 7.21). Start with a Cartesian coordinate system that uses one variable
for each axis. Separate each axis in two (or three) to construct a 2x2 matrix (3x3); high
and low are standard denominations. Represent the third variable by the size of the
circle but make sure that the circle areanot its diameteris proportional to the value
pictured.100
It is customary for the top right quadrant to be the most desirable one, so define your
dimensions accordingly. For instance, you might substitute cost, which progresses from
bad to worse as the quantity increases with cheapness.
Note that bubble charts can accommodate up to five variables:On top of the three pic-
tured in Figure 7.21, the color and the shape of the bubbles also may be added. Furthermore,
using arrows to indicate how bubbles move over time is possible. Depicting so many vari-
ables, however, may create working memory overload. So use these charts sparingly and aim
at minimizing the amount of information contained in each chart.101

100. (Viegas, Wattenberg, Van Ham, Kriss, & McKeon,2007).

101. (Shah & Hoeffner,2002).

188 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 189

Interactions Processes Organizations

FIGURE7.22: Concept visuals can be useful to represent nonquantitativedata.

A drawback of bubble charts is that they do not represent overlapping data well, given
that one big datapoint may obscure several small ones. In this case, consider using semi-
transparent datapoints or log scales.
Use good concept visuals. Concept visuals can be useful to represent nonquantitative data,
such as interactions, processes, or organizations. Figure 7.22 shows some typical examples.102
Concept visuals also can be immensely useful for illustrating quantitative data. Perhaps
the best-known example is that of engineer Charles Joseph Minards Carte figurative des
pertes successives en hommes de lArme Franaise dans la campagne de Russie 18121813
shown in Figure 7.23.103 The map shows six variables:the armys location (including splits),
the direction of movement, the size, and the temperature on specific dates. Although it may
be challenging to understand the first time out and has been criticized for being too compli-
cated,104 it remains a beautiful example of ingenuity.
Use spacial-flow opportunities. In western cultures, people read left to right and from
top to bottom. So people are conditioned to start at the top left of the slide.105 This can be
useful to support your point, for instance, by illustrating temporal transitions.
Use images that explain. The most useful images explain rather than simply decorate
the written information on the slide.106

102. For more examples of concept visuals, see (Duarte, 2008)[pp.4461].

103. (Edward R.Tufte, 2001)[pp.4041].
104. (Kosslyn,1989).
105. (Duarte, 2008)[pp.9697].
106. ( J. Garner & Alley, 2013), (Markel,2009).

Sell the Solution 189

FIGURE7.23: Minards map links Napolons armys size, position, and direction with dates and temperatures during the Russian campaign.
 191

3.5. FINAL I Z E YOUR MESSAGE

Before you call your presentation ready, review your message from your audiences point
of view: Is it compatible with their communication style? Does it flow? How can you
strengthen the weakest points? What are the implications of your message on your audi-
ence? Do your taglines add up to yourstory?
Similarly, you should check each slide one last time:Does the slide contribute in the
right way to the overall story? Does the tagline summarize the content well (and, similarly,
does the evidence support the assertion)? Is the point of the slide clear? Is the slide showing
the information using the best medium? Does your audience need to see everything that is
on the slide? Is it easy to read? Is it clear oftypos?
For important presentations, rehearsing is crucial.107 Indeed, one study showed that the
number of rehearsals was a significant predictor of the quality of speech performance.108
Also, ask others to give you feedback:Another study showed that practicing in front of an
audience is correlated with better performance and that the larger the practice audience, the
better the performance.109

4. DELIVER
Although success depends significantly on your setup, a great delivery is also critical. Here
are some guidelines to make your delivery memorable, in a positiveway.

4.1. BEFORE:PREPARE YOUR AUDI ENC E

AND YOUR SUPPORT
Aim at the presentation being an anticlimax. Ideally, by the time you present, the key
members of your audience will know your premises, pieces of evidence, and broad conclu-
sions. They will agree with you or, at least, you will have found some common ground with
them. This may require meeting with the members of your audience individually before
your presentation to understand their perspective, make them feel that they have been
heard, and identify how you can convince each. In that sense, it may be helpful to think of
the final presentation as a milestone where, as a group, you formalize agreements that you
have obtained beforehand with each key stakeholder.
Leverage reciprocity. Think back to the last time you stopped at a red light and turned
down the offer of a homeless person who wanted to wash your windscreen. What hap-
pened when they proceeded anyway? Did you find it hard to not give them anything? Then
you know how hard it is to say no when you feel you are in someones debt. This is called

107. (Alley, 2013)[pp.207,224], (Collins,2004).

108. (Menzel & Carrell,1994).
109. (Smith & Frymier,2006).

Sell the Solution 191

192

reciprocity, and it promotes long-term cooperation:110 If you do me a favor, Ifeel compelled

to do what you asked of me. It is not rationalyou did not ask them to wash your wind-
screen, in fact, you refusedbut itworks.
Bring a backup of your presentation on a different medium. Come early to set up
the roomincluding the projector, lights, and microphoneand troubleshoot. If you are
planning to project from a laptop, you may want to also bring a backup of your presentation
on a memory stick or another device.

4.2. WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE

Effective presenters are skilled at both expressing themselves and listening well. You express
yourself orally and with the rest of your body. Here are some guidelines to make both more
effective.
Use pitch to highlight your message. Using different pitch can help you avoid having
a monotone voice that would bore your audience. Also, be careful how you stress phrases,
as their meaning can change based on pitch only. Here is an illustration taken from Stephen
Allen, a communication consultant. Consider telling someone:Marketing gave me these
numbers. Now, say it out loud, stressing a different word each time, and observe how the
meaning changes:
Marketing gave me these numbers. They did not, Finance did.
Marketing gave me these numbers. They did not, Istole them from them.
Marketing gave me these numbers. They did not. They gave them to Jim.
Marketing gave me these numbers. They did not. They gave me others.
Marketing gave me these numbers. They did not. They gave me charts.
Use volume to signal transitions. Speak loudly enough so that everyone can hear you,
but modulate the volume of your voice to attract attention to important ideas and to signal
transition betweenideas.
Modulate your pace for emphasis. Slowing down to signal important points can help
you maintain the audiences interest. You may also pause for effect; for example, to signal an
important point, to let some information sink in, to transition between ideas, or to give the
audience time to read your slides and formulate questions.
Appreciate silence. Just as projecting a blank slide is effective when a slide would not
promote understanding or retention of a point,111 you should not feel obliged to talk all the
time. Avoid filler words and use pauses to your advantage:let the data sink in, gain thinking
time, and assess the audiences reaction.112
In addition to voice, a strong body language conveys credibility. Components of body
language are stance, movement, gestures, and eye contact.
Make eye contact to engage your audience. Establishing eye contact helps you con-
nect with the audience and monitor their reaction. Education expert Jannette Collins

110. (Flynn, 2003), (Parks & Komorita, 1998), (Cialdini, 2001b) [p.20].
111. See, for instance (Alley, 2013)[pp.106107].
112. (Gelula,1997).

192 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 193

Screen

Laptop

Sit closest to the projection screen with

your back to it so that your audience can
see both you and your slides.

FIGURE7.24: Ensure that your audience can see both you and your slides and talk to them, rather than to
your slides.

suggests that you maintain eye contact with someone for three to five seconds or until you
have finished expressing your idea.113
Find a relaxed default position that works for you. Stand up straight, distribute your
weight on both feet, and ensure that you do not shift your weight periodically from one
side to the other. Use gesture to emphasize specific words or ideas and to describe shapes,
size, numbers, directions .114 When answering questions, move toward the questioner
without being intimidating. Move away from the podium and walk around. Do not walk
too fast or always in the same pattern and avoid repeatedly crossing the projection if you
use a front projector. Also, avoid tattooing your face with the slide. For audio, a hand-free
microphone such as a clip-on, gives you more freedom of gesture.
On which side of the projector do you prefer to stand? Give some thought to this; if you
are on the left, you have easier access to the axes and to the beginning of bullet points, but you
will be pointing mainly with your left hand, which can be awkward for right-handed speakers.
When projecting, having a feedback screen in presenter mode allows you to see your
current slide and the next, which is useful for transitions. Good transition phrases include
so far we have been talking about, next lets talk about, so we have established
that; now lets look at , or therefore.
If you are presenting from a laptop at a conference table, sit closest to the screen with
your back to it. That way you will project behind you, enabling your audience to see both
you and your slides at the same time (see Figure7.24).
Work in harmony with your slides. Keisler and Noonan propose a technique for work-
ing with your visuals:Display a slide then pause; look at an audience member and explain
the slide to that person, paraphrasing it; and discuss the main insights.115

113. (Collins,2004).
114. See (Alley, 2013)[pp.248250], (Collins, 2004), (Gelula, 1997)for further thoughts on movements.
115. (Keisler & Noonan,2012).

Sell the Solution 193

194

Use short sentences in the active voice. Maintain a one- on-

one conversa-
tion:Communicate one idea at a time and talk to one person, maintaining eye contact. Talk
to people, not equipment.
Remember:Practice spontaneity.

4.3. L I STENWELL
Engage your audience and ask them to participate. One way to do this is by carefully listen-
ing to how they react to your material.116 Whenever you receive feedback, stop talking and
reflect on your audiences opinions and feelings; treat questions as an opportunity to con-
nect. Let your audience ask you questions and ask them questions.
Listen to the oral message but also pay attention to the nonverbal clues. Treat listening
as an opportunity to gain insight into their position. Part of your listening should also be
through monitoring your audience and picking up clues:you can respond to puzzled looks
by slowing down and clarifying your arguments while restlessness and boredom are a cue
that you should moveon.117

4.4. ANSWERWELL
Doumont suggests using a four-step approach to answering questions:1. listen to the whole
question, to ensure you understand it; 2.repeat/rephrase as needed, so others understand
it, too; 3.think to construct an answer that is brief and to the point; and 4.answer the whole
audience, keeping eye contact with all.118
Anticipate questions and prepare your answer beforehand. Ensure that your presenta-
tion discusses the key questions and have backup slides at the ready for answering second-
ary questions.
Decide when to argue and when not to: Choose the hills you are ready to fight for.
Think before you speak and before you respond.
Use your answer to connect. Engage through eye contact and check that your answer
satisfies the questioner. Consider repeating the question before answering it, especially if
it is a large audience and the questioner does not have a microphone, there is a potential
ambiguity in the question, or you need a little extra time to formulate your answer.
If you do not know the answer to a question, say so:you will not risk saying something
wrong and you will bring more credibility to the things that you do know. You also may offer
to check on a piece of information and get back to the person who asked you. If you do offer
to check, make sure that you follow through.

116. (Lussier & Achua, 2007)[p.202].

117. (Kosslyn, 1989)[p.53].
118. (Doumont, 2009)[p.117]. See also (Alley, 2013)[pp.264268].

194 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 195

4.5. CLOSE ONAHI GH

Summarize often in your presentation, including in your closing statement, which should
have an overall summary. Also, agree on the next steps:define the next tasks, deadlines, and
owners. In particular, commit to answering the questions for which you did not have an
answer.

4.5.1. CONSIDER STARTING YOUR REPORT ONTHE FIRSTWEEK

In academia, people tend to leave the communication for the end of a project:most PhD
students Isee do not start writing their dissertation until they are in their final year. In con-
trast, as a management consultant, Iwas encouraged to start writing my report very early
as early as the first week of an engagementbefore Ihad gathered the evidence to support
my conclusions.119 Then, as Iconducted my analysis, when Ifound that my initial guesses
were not supported by the evidence, Ichanged my originalstory.
Writing early helps you organize your thinking in a storyline. During your first week or
so, create the storyline of your final report, capturing the introduction of your problem and
what you expect the solution to be. Naturally, at this stage, most of this will be speculative.
To account for the mix of established facts and speculations in your storyline, signal
explicitly which elements are guesses; for instance, write tentative on the corresponding
slide (see Figure 7.25 below). These early slides are only placeholders and you should not
hesitate to change them should the evidence warrantit.

We use cables in the assembly of our Over the past 2 years, 95% of our cable How can we reduce the delays in our
MRI machines. We buy these cables from negotiations were delayed by 4+ weeks, cable negotiations?
selected providers amounting to $3M in lost revenue

[Tentative] Involving [Tentative] we have delays with

Management in the negotiations can Appendix several suppliers
help us cut the delays

FIGURE7.25: An early storyline shows how your story develops. Assumptions are highlighted until they
are checked and either validated or changed.

119. See also (Davis, Keeling, Schreier, & Williams,2007).

Sell the Solution 195

196

Starting early also will help guide your research. With your storyline in hand, you must
now populate your slides with the evidence that supports your taglines. As we have dis-
cussed in previous chapters, this does not mean that you should look only for supporting
evidence, but having a clear storyline will help you identify which data you need to gather.
By building your story from the top down, you will see where the gaps are and identify the
evidence you need to fill them in. This helps you focus your thinking, avoid noncritical de-
tails, and keep on target. This focus is important because, as we have seen, peripheral data
can dilute important but weak signals.120
In your analysis process, you may come across countless reports, technical papers, ar-
ticles, and so on. To keep track of these, consider summarizing each in a slide and placing
the slide in the appendix of your presentation, which then serves as a central repository. It
is difficult at the beginning of a project to see how all the pieces of the puzzle will fit, but
having a quick summary of evidence on a slide makes it easier to see, as a whole, what your
body of evidence amounts to. This central repository helps you retrieve evidence easily,
providing a written analog to your working memory, which is valuable because our working
memory is known to limit our ability to solve complex problems, in particular our ability to
consider more than one hypothesis.121
Starting to prepare your presentation early also helps you avoid the penultimate-day
syndrome. If you ever pulled an all-nighter before an exam or a presentation, you will re-
member that you were hardly at your best for the big event. By starting to work on your pre-
sentation at the beginning of your project, you can see your story evolve and can keep track
of how far it is from completion. This way you minimize the risk of finding large gaps hours
before handing in your report. You also can improve the persuasiveness of your message by
having time to think about how you want to structure it and by integrating key elements as
you uncover them. An added benefit is that giving a progress report is as simple as deciding
which slides go in the main slide deck and in which order. Therefore, you are always ready
to report your progress at any moment with little preparation.
Finally, starting early can help you coordinate your team because it enables you to see
the proverbial forest and how the work of each team member fits into that big picture. It also
gives the team a sense of direction and clarifies roles and goalsteam members also can see
where their contributions fit into the big picture and how indispensable they arewhich
may help bring higher team performance.122
Therefore, starting to prepare your presentation early has many advantages. However,
these advantages come with a significant drawback:Starting your writing early requires you
to take a posture early, before you have had a chance to look at evidence. This may reinforce
confirmation bias, which as we have seen, is already so prevalent that it certainly needs no
reinforcement.123 Therefore, you must demonstrate a steadfast commitment to adapting
your views in light of new evidence.

120. See (Nisbett, Zukier, & Lemley, 1981), (Arkes & Kajdasz, 2011)[p.157], and Chapter4.
121. (Dunbar & Klahr, 2012)[p.706].
122. (Castka, Bamber, Sharp, & Belohoubek, 2001; Kerr & Bruun, 1983)(Levi, 2011)[p.60].
123. See, for instance (National Research Council, 2011)[p.164].

196 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

FIGURE7.26: In Harrys case, we choose a logic-driven approach for communicating our results.
FIGURE7.27: In Harrys case, we choose a logic-driven approach for communicating our results (continued).
 199

5. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?
As highlighted at the beginning of the chapter, our first step is to identify what we want to
achieve with our presentation. Preparing a think/dofrom/to matrix, shown in Table 7.1,
helps us do that. Next, we craft a tentative storyline (see Figure 7.2) before distributing
each idea in the tagline of slides. We then populate the slides with evidence supporting the
taglines (see Figures 7.26 and7.27).
In Harrys case, we choose an approach almost entirely based on logic. This is accept-
able, but remember that this is only one of several options. Also note that in Figures7.26 and
7.27, the taglines differ slightly from our original storyline in Figure 7.2. This is common
because distributing our thinking across various slides, and seeing it related to supporting
evidence, introduces a new perspective that may trigger changes in our thinking and require
some iterations to maintain the intra-and interslide coherence of the taglines.
Chapter7 explained how to communicate effectively and convince the key stakeholders
of your project that the solution approach you have selected is appropriate. If you were a
strategy consultant a few years ago, this is where you would call it a day, celebrate copiously,
celebrate some more, and move on to your next project. For the rest of us, though, the prob-
lem is not solved yet and it will not be until you implement the solution approach, monitor
its effectiveness, and take corrective action as needed. Chapter8 gives some pointers on
how to dothis.

NOTES
Promoting change. Harvards Howard Gardner has identified seven levers to fa-
cilitate change: Reason making rational arguments (using logic, analogies, etc.);
Researchpresenting relevant data; Resonanceensuring the audience feels right about
it; Redescriptionpresenting the same idea in different formats; Resources and rewards
offering positive and negative reinforcement; Real-world eventsleveraging happenings
beyond our control; and Resistancesovercoming longstanding contrary beliefs.124
Making informational presentations effective. Alley recommends aiming at maxi-
mizing the logic and straightforwardness of such presentations. He also suggests following
the adage:Tell them what youre going to tell them, tell them, and tell them what you told them.125
Storytelling is an important aspect of getting funded. Martens etal. confirmed that
it is true that successful entrepreneurs often are effective storytellers.126
Suiting the story to the desired effect. Stephen Denning proposed elements that a
story should include to generate a specific effect (Denning,2006).

124. (Gardner, 2006)[pp.1518].

125. (Alley, 2003)[p.27].
126. (Martens, Jennings, & Jennings,2007).

Sell the Solution 199

200

Pyramids are old. Management consultants routinely refer to using pyramids in com-
munication as thinking Minto or being Minto, in reference to Barbara Minto. However,
the technique of placing ones main idea on topor foremost in the reportis at least
150years old; Edwin Stanton, President Lincolns secretary of war, already used pyramids.
The approach has been widely used in journalism for the past 120years.127
Telling your conclusions first. Some disagree with Zelazny that it is always better to
tell your conclusion first and then support it. The argument goes that when there is unex-
pected or bad news, it is better to let the audience connect the dots on their own.128
Principled multimedia presentation. There are additional principles to multimedia
learning aside from the six we discussed, including segmenting and pretraining principles.129
Assertionevidence is needed. The NewYorker magazines last page is a cartoon with-
out a caption. The magazine invites readers to submit captions and publishes three finalists
a few weeks after. It only takes one look at these to realize that, based on the same dataa
cartooninterpretations can go in all directions. So assume that your conclusion is not ob-
vious and place it at the top of your slides.
Assertionevidence structure and other slide designs. The assertionevidence tech-
nique originated at Hughes Aircraft in the 1970s and is best suited for presenting technical
material.130 For other types of communications, other slide designs have been proposed.131
Taglines and overloading working memory. Although Kalyuga etal. identified that
the simultaneous presentation of identical written and oral messages is detrimental to learn-
ing, they note that this applies only for large portions of text.132 Specifically, When text
is presented in small, easily managed sequential portions with sufficient temporal breaks
between them, a concurrent presentation of identical written and auditory material might
not cause deleterious effects on learning.
The various names of taglines. Taglines are also known as action leads133 and head-
lines,134 among othernames.
Less is more, yet again. There is strong evidence supporting the coherence principle,
which states that people learn better when extraneous material is omitted rather than
included.135
Creating waterfall charts. Waterfall charts can be challenging to prepare the first time,
in part because they do not come standard in most spreadsheet and presentation packages.
However, you can easily create one using a stacked bar chart, with two series. Set the bottom
series as transparent (with a stroke and filling of the same color as the background of the
slide), and make its value equal to the cumulative sum of the previous quantities of the

127. (Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2010)[pp.140141], (Mindich, 1998)[pp.6494].

128. (Keisler & Noonan,2012).
129. (Mayer,2014).
130. (Alley, 2013)[p.116].
131. (Duarte, 2008, 2010; Reynolds,2011).
132. (Kalyuga etal., 2004)[p.579].
133. (Keisler & Noonan,2012).
134. (Alley,2013).
135. (Mayer & Fiorella,2014).

200 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 201

top series (e.g., in Figure 7.20, the value of the bottom series for reason 3 is set to 38% +
17%=55%).
Improving your persuasion. Cialdini offers six ideas to improve how you persuade:
Uncover real similarities and offer genuine praise; give what you want to receive; use peer
power whenever it is available; make their commitments active, public and voluntary;
expose your expertisedo not assume it is self-evident; and highlight unique benefits and
exclusive information.136 Hoy and Smith add four more: acquire their trust; treat people
fairly; demonstrate that you can succeed; and show optimism.137
Removing animations. Animated visuals appear to be superior to static ones only
when they convey extra information.138
Implementation? We dont really do that. Just a few years ago, if you were a strategy
consultant, you could call it a day after producing your report on what your client should
do. So you might find some solace in knowing that, in todays era of tight budgets, even the
elite strategy consultancies have to worry about implementation.139

136. (Cialdini, 2001a).

137. (Hoy & Smith,2007).
138. (Tversky, Morrison, & Betrancourt, 2002), (Abela, 2008)[p.105].
139. (The Economist,2013).

Sell the Solution 201

202
 203

CHAPTER8

IMPLEMENT AND MONITOR

THESOLUTION

Y ou have convinced your projects key stakeholders that your proposed

solution is the right one; next you need to implement it. This chapter provides guidelines
and basic concepts of project management and team leadership to help you doso.1
Complex problems may require the analysis to span weeks or months and involve many
team members. So, although the ideas in this chapter come at the end of the book and are
geared toward implementing a specific solution, they apply equally well to conducting a
complex analysis.

1. ORGANIZE THEPROJECT
In many settings, skillfully managing the expectations of stakeholders goes a long way
toward keeping them satisfied with the outcome of a project.2 Acritical component of man-
aging expectations is to ensure that these people understand the project:They should know
what the project will deliver and what it will not deliver, how long it will take, how much it
will cost, how it will be completed, and what the benefits willbe.

1.1. DEVELOP THEPROJECTPLAN

To help you build shared understanding about the project, you may want to capture the
critical information in a project plan or charter. The project plan helps you validate with

1. Because project and team management are expansive subjects, we are merely introducing them here. For more, see, for
instance (Thompson, 2011), (Kerzner, 2003), (Sderlund,2004).
2. See, for instance (Pellegrinelli, Partington, Hemingway, Mohdzain, & Shah, 2007), (Appleton-Knapp & Krentler,
2006), (Kappelman, McKeeman, & Zhang, 2006), (Schmidt, Lyytinen, & Mark Keil, 2001), (Hartman & Ashrafi, 2002),
(Wright,1997).
204

your client the key aspect of the project:its scope, objectives, deliverables, risks, deadlines,
roles, etc. Figure 8.1 shows a possible outline for such a document.
When preparing the plan, be proactive:Think about the internal and external issues that
might arise and identify your projects key success factors.
It is possible or even likely that you will have difficulty agreeing with the stakeholders
on all aspects of the project. Indeed, various people, each with his or her own perspective
on the situation, might have different goals. This is one of the primary motivations behind
developing a plan; if there are differences, better they arise early on thanlater.
To build your plan, you will have to think about how you will reach your deliverables.
So defining the key characteristics of the project and planning the work (next section) will

Project name

Situation
1. High level
description Complication

Proposal: what the

project will do

In scope
Scope
Out of scope

Objective 1 &
2. Scope, associated metrics
objective, and
Objectives &
deliverables Objective 2 &
metrics
associated metrics

...
Project plan Deliverables

3. Timetable
(Gantt chart)

Assumptions
4. Assumptions,
support needed, Support needed
and risks
Risks

Project sponsor

Other key
stakeholders/
influencers
5. Stakeholders
Manager
Project team
Other team
members

FIGURE8.1: Aproject charter summarizes a projects critical information.

204 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 205

likely be iterative activities. Once you have agreed on a project plan, you may want to ask
your client to write a project chartera one-or two-page document that summarizes the
key characteristics of the projectand sign it. This will be useful to formalize your mandate
as the project leader and crystalize the project scope, which might be helpful in preventing
scope creep (see further in this chapter).

1.2. DEVELOP THEWORKPLAN

Taking a top-down approach, break down the project into pieces. Define goals and dead-
lines for each activity, identifying potential dependencies, and assign resourcespeople
and equipment. You may want to use a Gantt chart to document your original work plan
against a horizontal timeline, as Figure 8.2 shows.3
Although this process seems trivial, keep in mind that it is notoriously hard to estimate
accurately the time needed for executing complex projects, as cognitive scientist Douglas
Hofstadter humorously pointed out in his recursive law:Hofstadters Law:it always takes
longer than you expect, even when you take into account HofstadtersLaw.

1.3. DEFINE SUC C ESS

The traditional measures of success for project management are cost, time, and quality/
specificationsthe iron triangle or the triple constraint.4 However, you will probably want
to have a more precise picture of your progress and results. To help you evaluate how suc-
cessful your project is, identify appropriate metrics, or key performance indicators (KPIs).5

Task Owner Month 1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

Task 1: ...

Task 2

Task 3

Task 4

Task 5

Review with project sponsor

FIGURE8.2: AGantt chart summarizes the timetable of your project.

3. See, for instance (Meredith & Mantel Jr, 2009)[pp.342344].

4. (Atkinson, 1999), (Frame, 2003)[p.6]. See also (White & Fortune,2002).
5. See, for instance (Parmenter, 2007)[pp.117].

Implement and Monitor the Solution 205

206

2. MANAGE THEPROJECT
In the old days, many strategy consultants used to leave it to their clients to implement the
decisions they had recommended; after all, the thinking went, the analysis is the hard part.
Except that it is not: In many settings where implementation requires that people change
how they do things, implementation is harder.6 As management expert Peter Drucker puts
it, culture eats strategy for breakfast. And a look at the over 40% failure rate of mergers and
acquisitions seems to confirm this view.7 Successful integration depends upon the shared
perception of both partnering organizations that aspects of the other culture are attractive
and worth preserving.8
So a significant part of managing strategic change projects is managing people and the
social, political, cultural, and cognitive dimensions of the changes that the projects bring.
The following are guidelines to help youdoso.

2.1. LEAD YOURTEAM

A large part of your success depends on how you manage the people on your team (assum-
ing you have one). As the team leader, you may have a scope of responsibility that exceeds
that of your formal authority, which requires you to be a skilled coordinator and influencer.9
Using temporary teams to solve complex, ill-defined problems is the norm in various high-
reliability settings such as airline cockpits and emergency room operations. In these, there is
empirical evidence that non-technical skills training results in improved team work.10
Consider forming a more homogeneous team. If you have control over assembling
your team, you may consider forming one with people who have a homogeneous expertise.
Indeed, although diversity helps creativity, it can impede implementation because it gets
in the way of optimal teamwork.11 That is, you may be better served by using a heteroge-
neous team in the early stages of problem solving but relying on a homogeneous one for
implementation.
Look for high social skills in your potential team members. Group performance
does not seem to be strongly correlated to the average or maximum intelligence of its mem-
bers. Instead, it is correlated with the members average social sensitivity, the equality of
distribution of conversational turn-taking (i.e., no one is dominating the conversation),
and the proportion of women.12 In other words, look for people who are good at working
together.

6. (Bryant,2010).
7. (Cartwright & Schoenberg,2006).
8. (Cartwright & Cooper,1993).
9. (Frame, 2003)[pp.1819, 2936].
10. See, for instance (Fletcher etal., 2003; R.Flin & Maran, 2004; R.Flin, OConnor, & Mearns, 2002; Helmreich, 2000;
Yule, Flin, Paterson-Brown, & Maran,2006)
11. (D. G.Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). See also (Cronin & Weingart,2007).
12. (Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi, & Malone,2010).

206 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 207

TABLE 8.1: Emotional Intelligence Has Four Componentsa

Self awareness Ability to understand your emotions and how they affect your life. This
includes having realistic self-confidence:understanding your strengths
and limitations, operating with competence, and knowing when to rely on
teammates. It also includes managing your feelings:understanding what
triggers them and how you can control them.
Self management Ability to control disruptive emotions, including negative onesfor
example, anger, anxiety, worry. This involves staying calm under pressure
and developing resilience, that is, recovering quickly from adversity. It also
includes showing emotional balance:instead of blowing up at people, being
able to let them know what is wrong and what the solution is.
Social awareness Ability to understand others. This includes showing empathy and listening
well:paying full attention to the speaker, understanding what she or he
is saying without taking over. It also includes putting things in a way that
others can understand, accurately reading others feelings, and welcoming
questions.
Relationship Ability to work well with others. This includes communicating
management compellingly:putting your arguments in persuasive ways so as to clarify
expectations and motivate people. It also includes creating an environment
where people feel relaxed working with you.

a
After R. Lussier & C. Achua. (2007) and D. Goleman. (2015, April 7).

Value and use emotional intelligence. There is evidence supporting that emotional
intelligence is positively linked with team performance.13 Actively managing emotions is an
important component of team leadership effectiveness;14 as such, you will benefit from de-
veloping your emotional quotient or emotional intelligence (EQ or EI). EQ has four com-
ponents:self awareness, social awareness, self management, and relationship management
(see Table 8.1).15
Improving your EQ starts with recognizing its value and how well you are faring.
Lawrence Turman is the Chair of the Peter Stark Producing Program at the University
of Southern California, and the producer of various movies including The Graduate. As a
movie producer he knows a few things about managing a team of people with large egos to
reach a common goal. For Turman, being an effective producer requires one to be a psy-
chologist and a therapist:Some people are blessed with that sensitivity and some are not,
but being aware how important it is, and training yourself to be a really good listener, will
give you a big legup.16
Use structured interviews to select team members. Structured interviews are more
predictive of job performance than unstructured ones, because they reduce the discretion

13. ( Jordan & Troth, 2004), (Thompson, 2011)[pp.105106].

14. (Prati, Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley,2003).
15. (Lussier & Achua, 2007)[pp.3940]. See also (Goleman,2015).
16. (Turman, 2005)[p.147].

Implement and Monitor the Solution 207

208

of the interviewer in the decision-making process, which has been shown to lead to more
reliable and acceptable hiring practices.17 Ideas to structure an interview include: basing
all content on a job analysis; standardizing all questions (asking the same questions in the
same order to the various candidates); limiting prompting, follow-up, and elaboration on
questions; asking the candidate to relate actual work experiences to prompted situations
(i.e., behavioral interview); and asking the candidate for a course of action in a hypothetical
scenario (i.e., situational interview).18

1. AGREE ONEXPECTATIONS
Many problems arise in organizations as a result of a mismatch between expectations and
actions, so managing expectations is valuable. Brown and Swartz propose that the various
parties examine their expectations to identify potential gaps.19 Once common ground has
been identified, summarizing it in an expectations memo that can be periodically reviewed
helps ensure an appropriate deployment of efforts and resources. The memo serves to
ensure that roles and responsibilities are clear; it establishes a basis to set development ob-
jectives and is useful for evaluating the performance of the team members.
The project manager and team members are jointly responsible for writing the expecta-
tions memo at the beginning of the project and for reviewing it at appropriate times; for
instance, when reaching a milestone. If you are the manager, you should explain that all
team members have mutual accountability:individuals do not succeed or fail; the entire
teamdoes.
Set challenging yet attainable goals. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to
go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but be-
cause they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our
energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are
unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.20 President
Kennedys famous 1962 speech at Rice University played a critical role in helping to secure
public support for the Apollo program.21 In a similar way, identifying specific goals may
help you inspire your team and manage expectations; these goals should be challenging
yet attainable.22
Demonstrate and demand a can-do attitude. Explain that I have no idea does not
work. If you do not have the answer, find the answer. If there is no data, find proxy data.
There are always ways to get closer to an answer:focusand make sure that your team
focuseson finding these and not on whatever they do nothave.

17. (Bragger, Kutcher, Morgan, & Firth, 2002), (Macan,2009).

18. See (Levashina, Hartwell, Morgeson, & Campion, 2014), (Bragger etal., 2002)for reviews.
19. (Brown & Swartz,1989).
20. (Kennedy,1962).
21. See (Emanuel,2013).
22. (Barling, Weber, & Kelloway,1996).

208 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 209

Expect people to help others be successful. Stanfords Pfeffer and Sutton note that
helping others is a critical component of wisdom, an essential talent.23 My personal experi-
ence illustrates this:one of the ideas that Igreatly appreciated at Accenture was that our
performance evaluation formally included an item that recorded how good we were at help-
ing others be successful. When evaluation time came, this was not measured by my ability
to tell my evaluator how much Ihad helped others but, rather, by how much my evaluator
had heard my peers say how good Iwas at making them successful.
Motivate your people to seek help. Asking for and accepting help is also a component
of Pfeffer and Suttons wisdom.24 As a new consultant, Ionce admitted to my boss that Ihad
asked the help of another team member on an assignment. Fresh from academia, Iexpected
a scolding:after all, was this not cheating? Instead, he congratulated me! For him, what mat-
tered was the overall performance of the team. The ability of one of his team members to rec-
ognize his limitations and seek the efficient way to overcome themby seeking help rather
than searching alone or, worse, pretending that they did not existwas the right way togo.25
Develop and communicate your high expectations. The Pygmalion effectthe fact
that your expectation of an employees performance can become self fulfillinghas been
verified in various settings.26 Observing the effects impact on peoples creativity, manage-
ment professors Tierney and Farmer advise that as a manager you should clearly communi-
cate high expectations to the members of your team and bolster their confidence that they
can get the job done.27
Ensure that errors have a low cost. Making errors is an inherent part of the learning
process, so it should be encouraged, as long as their impact is manageable. You should create
an environment where people feel safe to make mistakes and report them.28
Promote speaking up. Team members speaking up about their observations, ques-
tions, and concerns brings high value to teams. Studying operating room teams, Harvard
Universitys Amy Edmondson found that team leaders encouraging team members to speak
up promoted the successful use of a new technology. The encouragement came in the form
of explaining the value of speaking up, creating psychological safety through recognizing
their own fallibilities, and emphasizing teamwork through minimizing the concerns about
power and status differences.29

23. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [p.104]. For tips on how to give and receive help, see (Schein, 2010)[pp.144157].
24. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [p.104].
25. Management professors Hansen and Nohria have proposed that interunit collaboration is a way for organizations to
improve their competitiveness. Through a survey of executives, they identified four major barriers to collaboration. The
first is the unwillingness to seek input and learn from others. (The other three are:inability to seek and find expertise,
unwillingness to help, and inability to work together and transfer knowledge.) See (Hansen & Nohria,2004).
26. See, for instance (McNatt, 2000). For the value of setting specific and challenging goals on performance, see also
(Rousseau, 2012)[p.69].
27. (Tierney & Farmer,2004).
28. See (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [pp.105106]. See also Edmondson [p.87] whose study supports that organizations
should encourage discussing and correcting mistakes (Edmondson,1996).
29. (Edmondson, 2003)[p.1446]. See also (Nembhard & Edmondson,2006).

Implement and Monitor the Solution 209

210

2. ADAPT YOUR LEADERSHIP STYLE TOTHE SITUATION

Just as a single golf club is not optimal for all shots, there is no one leadership style that is
most effective in all situations. Instead, effective leaders adapt their style to the situation,
choosing to engage with others in some settings and making decisions alone in others.
Goleman identified six leadership styles, summarized in Table 8.2, and his research in-
dicates that leaders who can use at least four of these styles are most effective. Although
this may look daunting, Goleman observes that leadership relies heavily on emotional intel-
ligence, which can be improved. Therefore, one can acquire new styles. Furthermore, he

TABLE8.2: Golemans Six Leadership Stylesa

Authoritative Affiliative Democratic

Leaders modus Mobilizes people Creates harmony Forges consensus
operandi toward a vision and builds emotional through participation
bonds
The style in a phrase Come with me. People come first. What do you think?
Underlying emotional Self-confidence, Empathy, building Collaboration,
intelligence empathy, change relationships, team leadership,
competencies catalyst communication communication
When the style works When changes require To heal rifts in a team To build buy-in or
best a new vision, or when or to motivate people consensus, or to get
a clear direction is during stressful input from valuable
needed circumstances employees
Overall impact on ++ + +
climate

Coaching Coercive Pacesetting

Leaders modus Develops people for Demands immediate Sets high standards
operandi the future compliance for performance
The style in a phrase Try this. Do what Itell you. Do as Ido, now.
Underlying emotional Developing Drive to achieve, Conscientiousness,
intelligence others, empathy, initiative, self-control drive to achieve,
competencies self-awareness initiative
When the style works To help an employee In a crisis, to kick start To get quick results
best improve performance a turnaround, or with from a highly
or develop long-t erm problem employees motivated and
strengths competent team
Overall impact on +
climate

(Goleman, 2000), (R. Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973), (Vroom & Jago, 1978).
a

210 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 211

notes that mastering these styles is not always needed if one can build a team with people
who can use the styles that one does not have.30
Analyzing the performance of airline crews, leadership specialist Robert Ginnett identi-
fied that highly effective captains, when they meet their crew for the first time during the
preflight briefing session, demonstrate their adaptive leadership styles through three activi-
ties.31 First, they establish their competence as the captain; for instance, by demonstrating ra-
tionality using a judicious organization for the meeting. Second, they acknowledge their own
imperfection; for instance, by addressing some of their vulnerabilities or shortcomings. And
third, they engage the crew by modifying the meeting to incorporate some of the elements
that emerge during it. This allows them to communicate an expectation of flexible authority
depending on the situation.

3. DELEGATE
Skillful delegation is beneficial to you, the leader, not just because it allows you to focus
your efforts elsewhere, but also because it can improve team performance and employee
happiness.32
You may want to use your issue maps to foster that sense of ownership within the team.
Indeed, your map makes the various parts of the problem come to the fore. By assigning
ownership of the workstream associated with various branches to specific team members,
you can help them see how their contribution impacts the overall effort. This also can be
used to clarify your expectations fromthem.
Delegation should also be your go-to technique in areas where you are not competent;
there, you should not make decisions or take action but rely on the people who are qualified
to doso.33

4. USE THERIGHT PEOPLE INTHE RIGHTPLACES

Perhaps one of the most insightful questions Ihave heard as a consultant was from a senior
manager on a large project when Istarted out. He said, Arnaud, are we using you as we
should? If Ihave an important unique skill but am being tied up doing something else that
could be easily done by someone else, then Iam not used optimally.34
If you are a team leader, you should assign your people where they can provide the best
value; that is, ideally, each person does first what they can do better than anyoneelse.

30. (Goleman,2000).
31. (Ginnett, 2010)[pp.100102]. See also (Orasanu, 2010)[p.171]. For an example of application of all three activi-
ties, see (Rogers, 2010)[p.307].
32. See, for instance, (zaralli, 2003), (Cohen, Ledford, & Spreitzer, 1996), (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007), (Pfeffer &
Veiga, 1999), (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008)[p.427].
33. (Drucker,2004).
34. This is related to the concept of comparative advantage; see (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981)[p.26].

Implement and Monitor the Solution 211

212

Use the Pareto principle to decide how to deploy your resources. Not all aspects of
your project deserve the same amount of your (and your teams) attention. We introduced
the Pareto Principle in Chapter4 and it is useful here, too:by deploying more resources
where they are most needed, you can increase your effectiveness. In psychologist Howard
Garnders words, It is important to be judicious about where one places ones efforts, and
to be alert to tipping points that abruptly bring a goal within (or beyond) reach.35

5. COACH YOUR TEAM EFFECTIVELY

Coaching includes providing motivational feedback to improve performance.36 Effective
feedback is necessary for learning37 and may result in markedly improved performances.38
You should provide both positive and negative feedback, even if giving the latter makes
you feel uncomfortable. Negative feedback is usually best given privately and should be
given in a timely fashion, usually immediately after the matter.39 Additional recommended
techniques to make feedback effective include: creating an unthreatening environment;
eliciting thoughts and feelings before giving feedback; being nonjudgmental; focusing
on behaviors; basing feedback on observed and specific facts; and proposing ideas for
improvement.40
You also may coach your team through developing a charismatic influencearticulating
a vision, appealing to followers values, and using analogies and metaphorswhich en-
hances followers motivation.41 Showing enthusiasm (being upbeat, especially in the face
of adversity) also may help you get your team on board emotionally and increase their
confidence.42
The most inspirational leaders Ihave worked with were working for their teams. They
kept an open environment where it was clear, expected even, for anyone to ask questions
and provide feedback. Early in one of my first consulting engagements, the manager in
chargeseveral pay grades above minetook the time to welcome me to the team. Part of
his message was, Arnaud, we do not expect you to know everything, but we expect you to
ask if you do not know. That helped establish that the environment wasopen.
Maintaining an open environment may start with keeping your office door openat
least some of the time. Another great boss Ihad, when asked a question, would invariably
stop typing on his computeror stop doing whatever else he was doing but, as manage-
ment consultants it seems that all we all did all the time was type awayshut off his laptop
and listen to me carefully. He looked me in the eye and engaged with what Iwas saying.

35. (H. Gardner, 2006)[p.8].

36. (Lussier & Achua, 2007)[p.211].
37. (National Research Council, 2011a) [p.52]; see also (Cannon & Witherspoon,2005).
38. (Murphy & Daan, 1984), (Rousseau, 2012)[p.69].
39. (Moss & Sanchez,2004).
40. (Hewson & Little, 1998). See also (Shute, 2008)for a review.
41. (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009)[pp.455456].
42. (Turman, 2005)[p.149].

212 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 213

Iknew that, at that moment, Ihad his undivided attention. He also was skilled at showing
that this offer was limited in time because, after two minutes, he would go back to what he
was doing. But Iknew that Icould have his attention whenever Ineeded it and that Ineeded
to prepare before solicitingit.

6. RUN SUCCESSFUL MEETINGS

Meetings can be a necessary evil:although needed, they often are wasteful.43 You can take
actions before, during, and after a meeting to make it more effective and efficient. Here are
someideas.
Before the meeting, clearly define and communicate the objective(s) through focused
discussions, because doing so is positively related with team satisfaction and team effective-
ness.44 Possible reasons for having a meeting include:to provide information, without any
action, decision, or conclusion (e.g., to provide a progress report); to decide what to do
next; to decide how to do the next actions; or to change the organizations framework. If
these objectives can be achieved in a different waysay, individually or collectively, by e-
mail or phoneconsider doingso.
Using an effective agenda helps speed-up and clarify the meeting.45 When structuring
the agenda, include not just a theme (e.g., Harry) but what you want to achieve (e.g.,
Decide who is doing what for finding Harry) and how long you expect it will take the
group to cover the topic (e.g., 15 minutes). Distributing the agenda ahead of time, Antony
Jay recommends two or three days before, helps participants prepare.46 Sending the agenda
ahead of time is positively correlated with perceived effectiveness of meetings, perhaps be-
cause it allows participants to come prepared and, therefore, contribute more effectively.47
You also should consider organizing the agenda so that the most important items come
first; that way the group will have a chance to address them even if time becomes short.48
Professor of management Leigh Thompson recommends specifying ground rules for
meetings and enforcing them.49 These might include everyone arriving on time, adhering
to assigned time for each item, and sticking to the agenda.
During the meeting, think of yourself, the chair, as the servant of the group rather than
the master. Antony Jay proposes that the chair should make a limited contribution to the
discussion, serving more as a facilitator than an actor. In that sense, the chair assists the
group in reaching the best conclusion efficiently, which entails interpreting and clarify-
ing, moving the discussion forward, and bringing the group to resolutions that everyone

43. For a review, see (Romano & Nunamaker Jr,2001).

44. (Bang, Fuglesang, Ovesen, & Eilertsen, 2010), (Allen etal.,2012).
45. Using an agenda, as well as taking minutes, also has been shown to help meetings start and end on time (Volkema &
Niederman,1996).
46. ( Jay,1976).
47. (Leach, Rogelberg, Warr, & Burnfield,2009).
48. (Lussier & Achua, 2007)[p.321].
49. (Thompson, 2011)[pp.355356].

Implement and Monitor the Solution 213

214

understands and accepts as being the groups, even if individual participants disagree.50 As
the groups facilitator, it is important for the chair to remain impartial.51
An effective chair deals both with the subject and the participants. Dealing with the subject
includes introducing the issue (Why is it on the agenda? What is known so far?) and presenting
a position:What needs to be done and what are the possible courses of action? As such, the
chair keeps the meeting pointed toward the objective and closes the discussion early enough.52
There are various reasons for closing a discussion before reaching a decision, for in-
stance, if more facts are required, if the meeting needs the viewpoints of people not present,
if participants need more time to think about the subject, if events are changing, if there
is insufficient time to cover the subject properly, or if a subset of the group can settle the
matter outside the meeting.53
Once this is done, the final component of dealing with each agenda item is to summarize
agreements.54
Dealing with people includes starting and finishing on time.55 It also includes control-
ling the group dynamic, including limiting overly talkative participants; engaging silent
participants, especially those who are quiet because of nervousness or hostility; protecting
the weak, for instance, by highlighting their contributions; encouraging the contention of
ideas while discouraging the contention of personalities; discouraging the squashing of
suggestions; coming to the most senior members last given that junior participants may
not feel comfortable speaking once someone of high authority has pronounced on a topic;
and closing on an achievement.56 It is important that you establish open communication
because this supports group performance;57 in particular, participants should feel free to
speak up whenever they feel that the meetings objectives are unclear.58
One way to promote progress in groups where participants are argumentative is to apply
de Bonos Six Thinking Hats technique whereby, at any given moment, all participants look
at one and only one specific aspect of the issue.59 In particular, by forcing all group members
to consider one specific aspect of an idea or proposal at a timefor example, lets spend five
minutes to think about how we can make this idea work and then we will spend five minutes
reflecting on why it might not work.This approach might be useful to constructively engage
a self-appointed devils advocate who tends to only see what is wrong with any proposal.
End the meeting on time. Before doing so, review the commitments, ask for suggestions
for future agenda items, and fix the time and place of the next meeting.

50. ( Jay,1976).
51. (Nixon & Littlepage,1992).
52. ( Jay,1976).
53. ( Jay,1976).
54. See (Thompson, 2011)[p.356].
55. Not only is starting and finishing on time good manners, there is empirical evidence supporting that it is correlated
with perceived meeting effectiveness (Nixon & Littlepage, 1992), (Leach etal.,2009).
56. ( Jay, 1976). See also (Whetten & Camerron, 2002)[pp.551552].
57. See (Nixon & Littlepage, 1992)for empirical evidence and a discussion.
58. (Bang etal.,2010).
59. (De Bono, 1999), (Schellens, Van Keer, De Wever, & Valcke,2009).

214 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 215

After the meeting, send the minutes as soon as possible. Instead of detailing precisely
who said what, minutes should focus on clearly identifying the major decisions reached, the
action items (who is doing what by when), and the open issues.60

7. COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY INALL MEDIAFORMS

The previous chapter provided some ideas to communicate effectively using presentations,
and many of these principles also apply when communicating with phones, e-mails, or in
person. In particular, ensure that you clearly express the objective of your communica-
tion, that you make your pyramid apparent, and that you point to clear next steps. Start
with your conclusion. Write clearly and concisely.61 Write well. Use the active voice, plain
Englishthat is, avoid jargon, buzzwords, and acronyms that might cause a problem for
your audienceprecise language, and correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Here
are additionalideas:
Make the pyramid apparent in the table of contents of a report. Just as the struc-
ture of your presentation should be visible in its outline and its taglines, the structure of
a written report should also be apparent. You can use two places to do that:in the table
of contents for parts, chapters, and sections and in the actual body of the text for para-
graphs. Figure 8.3 below provides two examples of tables of content. The first shows a list
of objectives with no indication of what those are. In contrast, the second establishes a

Abstract............................................................................................................................. 4 Some tables of content

Objective................................................................................................................ 4 provides the page
Method.................................................................................................................... 4 number where the
Basic Assumptions................................................................................................ 4
Using the Document.............................................................................................. 4 content can be found but
The Writing Team................................................................................................... 4 no information on what
Objective 11...................................................................................................................... 6 the actual content is.
Objective 12...................................................................................................................... 7 Readers, therefore, must
Objective 13...................................................................................................................... 9
Objective 14..................................................................................................................... 10 refer to each listed page
Objective 15..................................................................................................................... 11 before deciding whether
Objective 16..................................................................................................................... 12 they should read it.
Objective 17..................................................................................................................... 13
Objective 18..................................................................................................................... 14
Objective 19..................................................................................................................... 15
Objective 21..................................................................................................................... 16
Objective 31..................................................................................................................... 17
In contrast, other tables
What is different about the PISA 2009, survey?...................................................................... 21 of content provide a
A new profile of how well students read.................................................................................... 21 brief overview of the
An assessment of reading digital texts..................................................................................... 21 material covered. By
More detailed assessment of a wider range of student abilities.............................................. 21 just reading the table of
More emphasis on educational progress................................................................................... 21 content, the reader can
Introducing new background information about students........................................................ 21
decide which sections to
read in detail.

FIGURE8.3: All tables of content are not equal. The second one, by succinctly answering the readers
questions, enables the reader to decide quickly whether to read each section.

60. (Whetten & Camerron, 2002)[pp.549550].

61. See (Lussier & Achua, 2007)[p.201].

Implement and Monitor the Solution 215

216

PISA seeks to measure how well young adults, at age of 15

and therefore approaching the end of compulsory schooling,
are prepared to meet the challenges of todays knowledge
PISA seeks to assess how societies. The assessment is forward-looking, focusing on
well 15-year-olds are young peoples ability to use their knowledge and skills to
prepared for lifes meet real-life challenges, rather than merely on the extent to
challenges. which they have mastered a specific school curriculum. This
orientation reflects a change in the goals and objectives of
curricula themselves, which are increasingly concerned with
what students can do with what they learn at school, and not
merely whether they can reproduce what they have learned.

The pyramid can also be apparent in the body of the report if you
summarize each paragraph in the margin. The reader can then
choose the level of details she is interested in:

Minimum read only the table of contents,

Medium read the table of content and the paragraph summaries,
Maximum read the entire document.

FIGURE8.4: One also can make the pyramid apparent in the body of the text by summarizing each
section in the margin.

question-and-answer dialogue with the reader to enable her to decide quickly whether to
read each section.
Figure 8.4 shows how you can also make the pyramid apparent in the body of the text.
By summarizing each section in the margin, one enables the reader to quickly grasp the
overall content and help her decide whether she is interested in reading the full section.
Used in conjunction with a thoughtful table of contents, this technique enables the reader
to choose one of three levels of details at which to read the report:reading only the table of
contents provides the shortest overview of the report; reading the table of contents and the
paragraph summaries provides a closer look; and reading the full report provides the most
detail.
Write effective e-mails. E-mails and other text-based communications have the po-
tential to make you appear less competent, thoughtful, and intelligent than oral commu-
nication.62 But e-mail can be a more effective communication medium than face-to-face
communication in some settings; for instance, when discussing tasks of low ambiguity.63
Doumont, Kawasaki, and others offer guidelines to write more effective e-mails:64

Address the e-mail to those who must act, copy those who must know but notact.
Include in the subject line a reason why the addressee should read the message.
One way to do so is to phrase the subject line in two parts:the general topic and the
objective of the message (e.g., Finding HarryAre you OK with engaging others in
the search?). If the topic changes over an exchange, update the subjectline.

62. (Schroeder & Epley,2015).

63. (Valacich, Paranka, George, & Nunamaker, 1993). See also (Frohlich & Oppenheimer,1998).
64. See (Doumont, 2009)[p.157], (Kawasaki, 2008)[pp.205208].

216 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 217

Address only one topic per e-mail because this makes it easier to keep track of
conversations.65
Introduce your topic with a situation, complication, and the key question:the one
question you want to resolve with the e-mail.
Keep e-mails concise, ideally no more than three paragraphs.66 In addition to being
concise, write clearly and courteously considering purpose, clarity, consistency, and
tone.67
If you fail to keep your e-mail short, you may consider using boldface type for the
important parts. Also, for longer e-mails, you may want to start with your conclusion
and then provide details (e.g., Would you be okay with starting to look for Harry by
engaging others in the search? Here is why).
Include your signature if it is useful.
If applicable, specify who does what whenthat is, the owners, actions, and dates
aiming at conciseness and clarity. If the addressee needs to take action, indicate so
explicitly but politely.

Listen actively. Active listening includes physically hearing, interpreting, evaluating,

and responding or asking for clarification if the communicator was unclear. Effective listen-
ers also are able to suspend premature judgment during a conversation; that is, they do not
assume that what they expect is what they are going to hear. Effective listeners also are able
to pick up on nonverbal cues such as body language and facial expressions. Mastering these
skills requires ongoing practice.68

8. KEEP YOUR TEAM INFORMED

Good communication can have a strong impact on your teams motivation.69 For airline
crews, effective team leadership involves encouraging participation in task planning and
completion, stating the plan clearly, consulting the team on whether a change should be
made, and so forth.70
Managing your team is a continuous process. In summary:

Ensure that they know how the project is going, especially if there are complications.
Have clear expectations for each team member and ensure these are clear to each of
them,too.
Make your project an opportunity for your team to grow. Paraphrasing Napolon,
people are like digits, they only acquire value through their position.

65. (Ashley, 2005)[p.22].

66. Kawasaki asks for no more than five sentences (Bryant,2010).
67. (Ashley, 2005)[p.22]. See also (Crainer & Dearlove,2004).
68. (Department of the Air Force, 1998). See also (Archer & Stuart-Cox, 2013)[pp.1920].
69. (Clarke,1999).
70. (Rhona Flin etal.,2003).

Implement and Monitor the Solution 217

218

Provide positive and negative feedback quickly.

Talk with everyone often and on an informalbasis.
Coach continuously.
Ensure that everyone provides feedback on how the project is going and on how it
could go better.

9. MANAGE PROGRESS
Periodically, perhaps every week, review your progress against your original plan. If progress
is too slow or too expensive, take corrective action.
Managing progress also includes managing your boss. If you disagree with your boss,
this means deciding when to push back and when to give in. For instance, should you find
that your boss has made a mistake, how you report it can go a long way toward having it
fixed. In airline crews, junior team members are trained to use specific communication tac-
tics to be more effective in signaling errors made by their superiors. These tactics include
describing clearly the nature of the problem, suggesting solutions while leaving the final
decision to the boss, and explaining why your suggestions are good ideas.71

10. DEMONSTRATE HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS

If not for ideological purposes, maintaining high ethical standards will help you stay away
from being caught in lies, a difficult situation to get outof.72

11. NETWORK
Networkingdefined as building, maintaining, and using relationshipsprovides access
to knowledge, resources, and power.73 In addition, you should use your teams network
toward three ends:conduct ambassadorial activities (such as marketing the project to man-
agement, managing its reputation, lobbying for resources, and keeping track of advocates
and detractors), scout for information across your organization, and coordinate tasks with
other units.74
This is valid not just for project management but for your career in general, because
better networking is related to career success.75

71. (Orasanu, 2010)[p.168], (Fischer & Orasanu,2000).

72. (Lussier & Achua, 2007)[p.134].
73. (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004), (Inkpen & Tsang,2005).
74. (D. Ancona, Bresman, & Kaeufer,2002).
75. (Wolff & Moser,2009).

218 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 219

Effective networking includes acquiring and managing a group of mentors who can be
your trusted advisors.76 As a mentee, you should be an active participant in the relationship
as opposed to a passive receptor. One way to do this is to manage up:take ownership of
the relationship by planning the meetings, setting up the agenda, asking questions, listen-
ing, completing assignments, and requesting feedback.77

12. NEGOTIATE
Whenever achieving your goals requires you to cooperate with others, you need to negoti-
ate.78 Therefore, whether we realize itand whether we like itwe all negotiate every day.
As such, being able to negotiate well is critical to our success,79 and yet there is overwhelm-
ing evidence that we are for the most part ineffective negotiators.80
Negotiation can serve at least three purposes:creating value, claiming value, and build-
ing trust.81 Negotiation is an expansive subject and is far too broad for this chapter, so the
following are only a few basic ideas.82
Distinguish the people from the problem to focus on interests. It is often valuable
to differentiate the parties interests from the positions they take on the various issues being
negotiated.83 Emotions and egos can get entangled in the problem, resulting in people taking
things personally. To avoid this, Fisher etal. and others recommend that you manage:

Perceptionsputting yourself in their shoes, discussing their perceptions and

yours, involving them in the process
Emotionsunderstanding emotions (yours and theirs), allowing them to vent,
without reacting to emotional outburstsand
Communicationlistening actively, speaking to be understood, and not speaking
more than necessary.84

Having done so, you should aim at reconciling interests, rather than focusing on
positions.
Identify your BATNA. Your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is
the course of action that you would choose if you failed to reach an agreement with the

76. (De Janasz, Sullivan, & Whiting,2003).

77. (Zerzan, Hess, Schur, Phillips, & Rigotti,2009).
78. (Thompson, 2012)[p.2].
79. (Spector,2004).
80. (Van Boven & Thompson, 2003), (Thompson, 2012)[p.5].
81. (Thompson, 2012)[p.2].
82. For more on negotiation, see, for instance (Bazerman & Neale, 1992), (Thompson, 2012), (Raiffa, Richardson, &
Metcalfe, 2002), and (Fisher, Ury, & Patton,1991).
83. (Sebenius,1992).
84. (Ramsey & Sohi, 1997), (Fisher etal., 1991)[p.2336].

Implement and Monitor the Solution 219

220

other parties.85 Knowing your BATNA puts a floor on what you should be ready to accept;
indeed, you are negotiating to produce a better outcome than you could get without nego-
tiating, therefore you should refuse any deal that is worse than your BATNA.86 Having an
alternative increases outcomes (both yours and the joint outcome) and the better your al-
ternative is against the other parties, the larger your benefit.87 Note that your BATNA is not
fixed but, rather, fluctuates. At any time, it is either improving or deteriorating. So, should
it be appropriate, you can invest effort in creating alternatives.88 Indeed, good BATNAs do
not usually exist but, rather, must be created.89 One way of doing so is to follow Bazerman
and Neales falling-in-love rule: When house hunting (or being engaged in similar high-
stakes efforts), fall in love with three, not one.90 This amounts to delaying satisficing, that
is, not stopping your search as soon as you have found one satisfactory solution but, instead,
continuing to generate options (see Chapter 3).
Create value. Although a negotiation between parties is easily thought of as an exercise
in getting the larger portion of a fixed-size pie, it also can be an exercise in creating value,
that is, in making the pie bigger.91 Therefore, you may want to think about alternatives that
are beneficial for all parties. To create value, Fisher and his colleagues propose that you drop
the assumption that the pie has a fixed size, let go of searching for a single answer, and stop
thinking that solving their problem is their problem. In that sense, the process of creating
value mimics how we identified alternative solutions (see Chapter5).
First be nice, then mirror. When negotiating with someone as part of a wider re-
lationship, should you aim at cooperating (being nice) or being selfish (attempting to
secure as much as you can for yourself)? Being selfish may give you the highest short-term
payoff, but cooperating has the biggest reward in the long run. After organizing computer
tournaments where game theorists pitched various negotiation strategies against one an-
other, political scientist Robert Axelrod concluded that you should first cooperate and
then imitate the other partys last action.92 The key is to realize that you and the other
party are communicating through your actions. Cooperating (i.e., starting nice) sends the
message that you are willing to make some accommodations. If the other party adopts a
dominating strategy, then you should reciprocate that aggression. Likewise, if they are
nice, then be nice. Continue imitating their last move in each subsequent instance. This
creates a cooperative environment where the parties learn to search for an integrative
agreement.93

85. (Fisher etal., 1991)[pp.97106].

86. (Thompson, 2012)[p.15].
87. (Pinkley, Neale, & Bennett,1994).
88. (Brett,2000).
89. (Ury, 2007)[p.23].
90. (Bazerman & Neale, 1992)[p.69].
91. (Fisher etal., 1991)[p.56].
92. (R. Axelrod, 1980a, 1980b), (R. Axelrod & Hamilton,1981).
93. (M. A.Nowak & Sigmund,1992).

220 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 221

Axelrod offers four prescriptions for this strategy to work: (1) do not be envious (if
they are the first to defect, they will have it their way one more time than youaccept this
and move on94); (2) be nice, that is, do not be the first to defect; (3) reciprocate coopera-
tion and defection; and (4) be clear: communicate unambiguously that you will reciprocate
their actions.95

2.2. MANAGE YOUR CL I ENTS

Often you will have several clients: at least one decisionmaker plus one or several key stake-
holders. Managing your relationships with them and managing their expectations is critical
because ineffective stakeholder management is one of the biggest causes of project failure.96
Managing expectations includes focusing fuzzy expectations, making implicit expecta-
tions more explicit, and calibrating unrealistic expectations.97
Build credibility early and reinforce it frequently. Engage your projects clients early so
they get a chance to have the team address their issues. Report frequently, perhaps weekly,
and keep them informed of problems and potential problems.98

1. UNDERPROMISE AND OVERDELIVER

Establishing and maintaining high credibility requires demonstrating that you are trustwor-
thy. At the very least, this means meeting deadlines,99 but in general you might be well served
to constantly underpromise and overdeliver. Stanfords Tom Byers advises entrepreneurs to
follow five rules:(1)Show up on time; (2)Be nice to people; (3)Do what you say you will
do; (4)Deliver more than you promise; and (5)Work with enthusiasm and passion.100

2. BE PROACTIVE
Understand your clients needs and management style and quickly build credibility (by
underpromising and overdelivering, being reliable, demonstrating strong ethical standards,
and showing respect forall).
Come prepared. If you are invited to a meeting but have not received an agenda, come
with one of your own, especially if you are the junior person in the room. You may not need

94. This is related to the concept that, to establish a stable cooperative solution, you may have to strive for a satisfactory
payoff rather than an optimal one; see (Simon, 1996)[pp.3738].
95. (R. M.Axelrod, 1984), (Bazerman & Neale, 1992)[p.163165], (Parks & Komorita,1998).
96. (Nelson,2007).
97. (Ojasalo,2001).
98. (Wright,1997).
99. (Lussier & Achua, 2007)[p.133].
100. (Madson, 2005)[p.135].

Implement and Monitor the Solution 221

222

to use it, but if the senior person in the meeting looks at you asking, So, why are we here?,
you will be prepared.
Understand the political landscape. Although it is natural to think that organizations
make decisions rationally, managerial decision-making is often not rational, with politics
and power both playing key roles.101 Understanding these dynamicssuch as identifying
the power yielders and their motivationsmay be critical to the success of your efforts.

3. AVOID SCOPECREEP
One of your clients is the one paying for the project, for instance, your boss. But once the
project gets underway, you usually interact more with other peoplesuch as end users
who may have a different agenda. They may ask you to include additional considerations
that are important to them in your projects, resulting in scope creep. Therefore, it may be
advisable to develop a scope management plan that involves your client(s).102 Having a clear
project plan can help you avoid scope creep from the onset of your project.
By the way, this is valid for anyone on your team: It is usually not a good idea to let any
of your team members do significant extra work at the request of stakeholders without this
being mandated by the decisionmakers.

4. COMMUNICATE
Communicate frequently, updating your client(s) and other stakeholders on the progress
of your project. This is also valid for bad news:better that they learn such things from you
than from another source.103

2.3. MANAGERI SKS

You should manage risks not just in the preparation phase, as we discussed, but also along
the course of the project. Risks can be of many kinds, including inappropriate leadership
support, changes in the buy-in of stakeholders, or scope creep.104 Risks have two primary
components:the probability of their occurrence and the impact of occurrence. These two
components must be considered along with your own tolerance toward risk.105 You can
handle a risk in one of four ways, shown here from most risk-adverse to least:106

101. (Lussier & Achua, 2007)[pp.132133].

102. (Dey, Kinch, & Ogunlana, 2007). See also (Papke-Shields, Beise, & Quan,2010).
103. For more on delivering bad news and the impact on projects, see (Sussman & Sproull, 1999), (Smith & Keil,2003).
104. (Nelson, 2007). See also (Bradley,2008).
105. (Kerzner, 2003)[pp.653654].
106. (Kerzner, 2003)[pp.682686], (zur Muehlen & Ho,2006).

222 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 223

Transfer the risk. Pass on the risk to someone else, for instance, by purchasing an
insurance policy;
Control/mitigate the risk. Continuously re-evaluate the risk, both the likelihood
and impact of occurrence, and develop contingencyplans;
Avoid the risk. Before a specific risk occurs, elect an alternative that does not
include the risk;and
Assume the risk. Accept the risk and proceed.

Managing risks requires you to identify and prioritize the risks, plan how you will
manage them, and monitor as you go. To help you do so, consider maintaining a top-five
risk list and conduct interim reviews.107

2.4.CLOSE
Debrief. Proper debriefs can improve individual and team performance significantly.108
Pilots and astronauts routinely debrief after their flights, which allows them to identify
mistakes and ways to avoid them in the future. The debriefing process also increases their
bonding. This is challenging because significant learning requires admitting that one makes
mistakes, which can generate a perception of incompetence.109
To mitigate this, acknowledge the value of each members participation, reinforce the
importance of self-reflection, ask open-ended questions, and build an open and safe en-
vironment. Build an environment in which it is accepted that everybody makes mistakes,
where members accept and respect one another, and where it is clear that the debriefing will
remain confidential.110 It should be clear that holding a debriefing session does not signal
that something went wrong but, rather, generates an opportunity for groups to discuss what
they have learned.111
Share the glory. In an information economy, employers strive to attract and retain tal-
ented employees. Therefore, being credited for contributions is important for your career.112
This does not mean, however, that you should attribute others contributions to your-
self or even that you should take all the credit that you deserve. Indeed, generously attribut-
ing credit to coworkers is a way to engage them, and employee satisfaction and engagement
are related to business outcomes.113 Therefore, generously attributing credit to your team
members may support the success of yourteam.

107. (Nelson,2007).
108. (S. I.Tannenbaum & Cerasoli,2013).
109. (Ron, Lipshitz, & Popper,2006).
110. (R. Gardner, 2013; Rall, Manser, & Howard, 2000; Ron etal.,2006).
111. (National Research Council, 2011a) [p.27], (Rogers, 2010)[pp.311312].
112. (Fisk,2006).
113. (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes,2002).

Implement and Monitor the Solution 223

224

3. SELECT AND MONITOR KEY METRICS

Variancesdiscrepancies between your original plans and progress to dateare an integral
part of project management. As such, your goal is not so much to try to avoid them as it is
to keep them acceptably small.114 To help you do so, you should identify and continuously
monitor a set of metrics that helps you recognize discrepancies early and enables you to take
corrective action quickly.

4. DOCUMENT EVERYTHING THAT YOU

THINK CAN BE USEFUL INTHEFUTURE
Every problem- solving process is a learning opportunity. Make sure that you take
advantageofit.

5. UPDATE YOUR MAPS ASNEW

INFORMATION APPEARS
Even this late in the problem-resolution process, your maps remain a guide and a central
repository. If new evidence surfaces, you should include it in your map. You should also
crossout branches, add new ones, and change your conclusions as warranted.

6. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?
Having decided that it was best to first enlist others in looking for Harry, we reached out to
a neighbor who has seven dogs and who we, therefore, appointed the dog expert. He gave
us the phone number of the president of the local pet association. When we called, we went
straight to his voicemail, so we left a message and prepared to search the neighborhood.
Within minutes, however, he returned our call. Although he was on a business trip thou-
sands of miles away, he had already been contacted by someone living a few blocks away
from Harrys house, who had found Harry and was keeping him until we could retrieve him.
All told, we were reunited with Harry a couple of hours after noticing his disappearance.
Talk about the value of having a network!

114. (Frame, 2003)[p.11].

224 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 225

Chapter8 completed our in-depth description of a problem-resolution process. In the

last chapter, we will discuss some final thoughts on being an effective problem solver, in-
cluding attitudes that you should adopt in the process and skills that you should nurture.

NOTES
Another one bites the dust. Some estimates show over 70% of mergers fail to deliver
their intended benefits and destroy economic value in the process.115
Evidence-based management, or lack thereof. Although medicine is leading the way
in using evidence-based research to guide the practice, some argue that management is not
there yet116 and neither is intelligence analysis.117
Get some feedback (and do not blame the weatherman). Compared with numerous
professionals, including clinicians, most professional weather forecasters appear to not be
as prone to overconfidence, at least for their weather predictions. This has been attributed
to their receiving constant and timely feedback on the accuracy of their predictions, which
greatly facilitates learning.118
Teamwork? Thats not what I trained for. Robert Ginnett at the U.S. Air Force
Academy notes how our current educational system, which encourages and rewards indi-
vidual performance, is at odds with how graduates are expected to work for the rest of their
lives:as part of teams.119 If even fighter pilotsarguably highly individualistic profession-
als, at least in the general publics beliefsee themselves as working in teams, perhaps our
educational system should start training and rewarding students not just for individual tasks
but also for collectiveones.
No consensus on optimal team size. There is no widespread agreement in the litera-
ture as far as an optimal team size. Some studies note that having more members is better.
Others find a sweet spot between too few and too many (fewer than 10 is desirable; so is
having the smallest number of people who can get the job done120). Still others find no cor-
relation between the number of members and performance.121
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership may be defined as the abil-
ity of a leader to influence the values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of others by working
with and through them in order to accomplish the organizations mission and purpose.122

115. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006b) [pp.34].

116. (Barends, ten Have, & Huisman, 2012; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006a, 2007; Rousseau, 2006; Rynes, Giluk, & Brown,
2007), (National Research Council, 2011b) [pp.324325]. For an entertaining insight into consulting and further evi-
dence supporting this claim, see (Stewart,2009).
117. (National Research Council, 2011b) [pp.9697].
118. (Nickerson, 1998)[p.189].
119. (Ginnett,2010).
120. (Thompson, 2011)[p.82].
121. See (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003)[p.12] for a review.
122. (zaralli,2003).

Implement and Monitor the Solution 225

226

TABLE 8.3: You Can Think of a Team as Being One of Five Kindsa

Team Key Characteristic Indication

Face-to-face Our common idea of what a team is. When output requires
team Members sit together and rely contributions from diverse
heavily on their interactions with members with complementary
one another. expertise.
Virtual team As face-to-f ace but members are not When interdependent tasks
co-located are needed but members live in
different places.
Surgical team Members work together but one When extremely high individual
individual is ultimately responsible. The insight, expertise, and/or
focus is on ensuring that the creativity is needed. It is the
lead has all the assistance that members writing of a play, rather than its
can provide. performance.
Co-acting Members have their own tasks in the When tasks require parallel
team group. efforts with little interactions.
Sand dune Have fluid composition and When resources are scare.
team boundaries:people become
members and leave as needed. They may
have a more solid core.

a
After J. R. Hackman & M. OConnor. (2004). What makes for a great analytic team? Individual vs.
team approaches to intelligence analysis. Intelligence Science Board, Office of the Director of Central
Intelligence, Washington, DC.

No one likes a dictator. Although using an autocratic leadership style may be the most
efficient in some situations, a participatory approach is preferred by most team members.123
On negotiation. There are two primary schools of negotiation: the primarily
cooperativewhich is more problem-solving oriented, aiming at ensuring that all parties
benefitand the primarily competitive one, which is more adversarial.124 Empirical data
suggests that it is more difficult to be an effective competitive negotiator than an effective
cooperative one.125
Five kinds of teams. Hackman and OConnor identified five kinds of teams, each with
their own peculiarities126 (see Table8.3).
Growing the pie. Revising an agreement in such a way that it makes at least one party
better off without making anyone worse off is known as a Pareto improvement.127
Tit-for-tat, Pavlov, and other negotiation strategies. An alternative to Axelrods tit-
for-tat (i.e., first be nice, then mirror) is a Pavlov strategy:cooperate if, and only if, both
players used the same alternative in the previous round. Compared to tit-for-tat, Pavlov

123. See (Heilman, Hornstein, Cage, & Herschlag, 1984), (Thompson, 2011)[p.284].
124. See (Schneider, 2002)[pp.148150].
125. (Schneider, 2002)[p.167,190]. See also (Bazerman & Neale, 1992), (Fisher etal., 1991), (Ury, 2007), (Malhotra &
Bazerman,2007).
126. (Hackman & OConnor,2004).
127. (Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007)[p.65].

226 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 227

corrects inadvertent mistakes and exploits unconditional cooperators.128 Pavlov is ineffec-

tive in noisy environments129 and tit-for-tat has limitations of its own in noisy environments
or when cooperation may be mistaken for deception.130 Offering additional (but not uncon-
ditional) generosity may improve tit-for-tats results in noisy environments.131
Welcome to the meeting, please remain standing. A study at the University of
Missouri found that, for making decisions, sit-down meetings were 34% longer than stand-
up ones but did not produce better decisions.132
Gain perspective through asking yourself some questions. The Space Flight
Resource Management program trains astronauts in nontechnical skills that are essential for
mission success. Among its resources is a list of questions to help them ensure whether they
are on the right track. Examples include:Do we all agree on what we will be doing next?
Is there a climate for openness? and Are conflicts resolved with mutual respect intact?133
More debrief best practices. Salas etal. propose 12 evidence-based best practices for
debriefing medical teams:1.Make it diagnostic; 2.Create a supportive learning environ-
ment; 3.Encourage leaders and members to be attentive to teamwork processes; 4.Teach
how to conduct good debriefs; 5.Ensure members are comfortable during debriefs; 6.Focus
on a few critical issues; 7.Describe specific interactions that were involved; 8.Use objective
performance indicators to support feedback; 9.Provide outcome feedback later and less
frequently than process feedback; 10. Provide feedback for individuals and teams as appro-
priate; 11. Provide feedback quickly; 12. Keep track for future sessions.134

128. (M. Nowak & Sigmund,1993).

129. (Wu & Axelrod,1995).
130. For a review, see (Parks & Komorita,1998).
131. (Bendor, Kramer, & Stout,1991).
132. (Bluedorn, Turban, & Love,1999).
133. (Pruyn & Sterling,2006).
134. (Salas etal.,2008).

Implement and Monitor the Solution 227

228
 229

CHAPTER9

DEALING WITH
COMPLICATIONS
AND WRAPUP

A s closure, this chapter takes a step back to look at the entire problem-
solving process and give some final guidelines. These apply to managing the process and
managing yourself, the problem solver.

1. MANAGE THEPROCESS
Taking a look at the previous eight chapters, our approach to problem solving can appear
daunting. In fact, for many problems, applying the methodology fully is counterproduc-
tive. The observations of decision specialists von Winterfeldt and Edwards on how they
use decision tools seem directly relevant to this setting, too:We ourselves use elements of
decision analysis (e.g., probability estimates) daily but perform full analyses to facilitate or
to check on personal decisions only once or twice per year. The cost of systematic, careful
thought using formally appropriate tools is high enough that even experts do not routinely
or casually incurit.1
Our definition of strategic thinkinga process that includes design, analysis, and syn-
thesis; design to identify the key activities needed, analysis to assemble and process the
necessary data, and synthesis to produce a solution that results from a choice between al-
ternative courses of actionindeed starts with design to identify the key activities needed.
Some situations call for the application of the entire methodology, others might be better
served with a partial application. As such, rather than seeing this approach as a rigid frame-
work that must be applied in its entirety or left entirely alone, Iwould encourage you to see

1. See (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986)[p.3].

230

it as a series of independent modules, each of which you may decide to use or not use based
on your best judgment applied to your specific situation.

1.1. UNDER PRESSURE, RETA IN CRI T I CAL

ELEMENTS
Our technique is not well-suited to problems that require a resolution in a matter of sec-
onds, minutes, or even hours, because such problems do not typically give one the luxury
of developing two issue maps and the rest of the analysis that we discussed. In fact, even
when dealing with nonimmediate problems, you may come under time constraints. And
other constraints may apply as well; for instance, you may not have the budget available to
conduct the entire analysis as you wouldwish.
If at all possible, you should resist these time pressures because additional stress seldom
promotes effective problem solving. For instance, the 21-day Congressional deadline im-
posed in 2002 on the analysis of whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction is believed
to have been an important factor in why analysts reached the wrong conclusions.2
Rejecting deadlines is seldom an option, however, and meeting them requires us to
make some assumptions and cut corners in other ways.3 In these cases, bypassing some
steps altogether to concentrate on finding and implementing solutions is a possibility (see
Figure 9.1 [c]). But this is risky, because incorrectly framing or diagnosing your problem
could lead you to consider inappropriate solutions. Instead, you may prefer to retain all four
steps, allocating a shorter time to each as shown in Figure 9.1(d).

1. Frame...
2. Diagnose ...
(a) 3. Identify ....
4. Implement ...
Time needed for
full analysis
(b) Available time
1. Frame... Under time pressure, it is
2. Diagnose ... tempting to bypass some steps
(c) altogether. However, because all
3. Identify .... four steps are critical, this can be
4. Implement ... seriously counterproductive.

1. Frame...
An alternative is to budget your
(d) 2. Diagnose ... time so that you can still go
3. Identify .... through the four steps but
dedicate less time to each.
4. Implement ...

FIGURE9.1: Under time pressure, refrain from bypassing steps, if possible.

2. (George & Bruce, 2008)[p.180].

3. (Boicu, Tecuci, & Schum,2008).

230 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 231

The key is to find the time to accommodate all critical parts of the process by sacrific-
ing the not-critical-but-nice-to-have parts. Basadur proposes that, under time pressure, you
consider sacrificing some divergence.4 This seems sensible:If you remove the framing step
altogether, you risk solving the wrong problem. Whatever you do after that will build on a
shaky foundation. In contrast, if you retain that framing step and make time for it by cutting
the time you allocate to developing your solution map, you may not identify the great solu-
tions that full divergence would provide but, instead, only discover good-enough solutions.
This is certainly not ideal, but a good-enough solution to the right problem trumps a great
one to the wrong problem.
In some instances where there is not sufficient time to diagnose the problem properly
and where time is extremely short, pilots are encouraged to resort to procedural manage-
ment, whereby they treat the situation as an emergency and manage it without clearly de-
fining the problem.5 A successful application of the technique is Captain Sullenbergers
landing of USAir 1549 in the Hudson River after losing both engines on take-off after ex-
periencing bird strikes. Sullenbergers initial plan after the impact was to land at Teterboro
Airport but, realizing he did not have sufficient altitude, he opted for the water landing
instead.6

1.2. JUMP BACK AND FORTH BETWEENSTEPS

IFNEEDED
Although the problem-solving process we introduced is sequential, it might be useful to
think of it as a collection of spaces rather than formal steps given that, on some projects,
it is necessary to move back and forth.7 Indeed, complex, ill-defined, nonimmediate prob-
lems (CIDNI) usually are so messy that, despite your best efforts, you may not fully un-
derstand the problem well into the diagnosis or the search for solutions. Borrowing from
Rittel and Webbers description of wicked problems, problem understanding and prob-
lem resolution are concomitant to each other.8 Uncovering evidence may trigger you to
revise your thinking, thereby warranting iterating between steps. This is another charac-
teristic shared with decision problems where the process is recursive in nature and analysts
are warned that not iterating among steps might be an indication of looking at the problem
too superficially.9
Note that revising your thinking in light of new evidence is challenging, because you
have to let go of previous progress, which appears to be wasteful.10

4. See (Basadur, 1995)[p.66] for a discussion.

5. (Orasanu, 2010) [pp. 156157].
6. See (Hersman, Hart, & Sumwalt,2010).
7. Speaking of spaces rather than steps is common in design thinking; see, for instance, (Brown, 2008), (Brown &
Wyatt,2010).
8. (Rittel & Webber,1973).
9. (von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986)[p.27].
10. This is the sunk cost fallacy. See Chapter2, (Arkes & Blumer, 1985), (Arkes & Ayton,1999).

Dealing with Complications 231

232

1.3. DEC IDE WHETHER TOSHARE YOURMAPS

Involving stakeholders in the resolution process can promote success because providing
people with a sense of ownership over an idea is linked to enhancing the commitment and
effort they devote to the success of the idea.11 So involving stakeholders early and often
is beneficial not just as a source of additional ideas but also as a way to facilitate their
implementation.
To involve stakeholders, you may choose to expose them to your issue map(s) or you
may not. In my experience, the best approach depends primarily on the personality of the
stakeholder and the ability of your map to foster a constructive conversation with that
person. Certain people will feel overwhelmed by an issue map and see this tool as one that
does not resonate with them, while others will get caught in the game of divergent thinking
that a map can promote. So if there is a guideline here, it is not so much whether you should
expose your stakeholders to your maps as a matter of standard practice, but, rather, that you
remain sufficiently observant to identify whether exposure would be productive in your
particular instance.

2. MANAGE YOURSELF
Good leaders know their strengths and limitations and identify ways to compensate the
latter.12 You need to understand yourself, your expertise, and your limitations. This section
provides guidelines on what skills you should develop and ideas to help you developthem.

2.1. DEVELOP THERI GHT SK I LL SET

AND ATT I TUDE
Beware of natural tendencies with a negative impact. Negotiation specialist Leigh
Thompson identifies four traits that limit our abilities to negotiate effectively that also may
limit our ability to think strategically.13 In previous chapters, we already have covered the first
three:being overconfident (see Chapters1, 3, 8), falling prey to confirmation bias (Chapters3,
4), and satisficing (Chapter3). Thompsons fourth trait, suffering from self-reinforcing incom-
petence, prevents us from experimenting with new courses of action because of the risks
associated with experimentation.
Aside from keeping in check these negative tendencies, from which we all seem to suffer,
you may want to actively develop beneficial skills.
Hone your designer skills. Engineer Clive Dym and his colleagues note that good
designers share key skills, including tolerating ambiguity; keeping the big picture in sight;

11. For example, (Baer & Brown, 2012), (Avey, Avolio, Crossley, & Luthans, 2009)and Chapter2.
12. (Toegel & Barsoux,2012).
13. (L. L.Thompson, 2012)[pp.67]

232 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 233

handling uncertainty; making decisions; being a good team member; and thinking and
communicating effectively.14 Good design skills also require mixing rational and emotional
approaches.
Hone your researcher skills. As we discussed in Chapter1, the UK Research Councils
has identified a number of skills that aspiring researchers should develop (see Table1.2), all
of which are traits of an effective problem solver.15
Embrace failing, ifappropriate. Part1:Ensure thecost offailure is manageable.
In some settings, failure is not an option, which rules out a trial-and-error approach. For
instance, think about the Project Gemini and the Apollo Program, which consisted of build-
ing on successes in progressively more complex missionsfirst, go into earth orbit, then
dock, then go to lunar orbit, etc., as opposed to aiming at landing on the moon with their
first mission, failing, and trying again. In such unforgiving settings, one has to rely on suc-
cesses only, a constraint that Cambridge fluid dynamicist Michael Thompson conveys to
young researchers:Like a surgeon, you have to strive to be right all of the time.16 But in
other settings, making failures low-cost occurrences with a high learning potential can be
extremely beneficial. For instance, a low cost of failure is sometimes credited to be a key
enabler of Silicon Valleys entrepreneurial success.17
Embrace failing, ifappropriate. Part2:Ensure failing provides a valuable learning
opportunity. So, although failing can be desirable, it must be in a setting where failures are
learning opportunities. Organizational theorist Russell Ackoff separates errors of commis-
sion (doing something that you should not have done) from errors of omission (failing to do
something you should have done). He notes that the latter usually have the bigger impact
and yet typical accounting only catches the former. He also suggests that managers should
reward the best mistakes in their organizations, best defined as the ones that generated
the highest level of learning.18 Making mistakes is an inherent part of learning something
new and, as such, it should be encouraged, so long as you learn from your mistakes.
Keep a learning mentality. Carol Dweck, a development psychologist at Stanford,
has looked extensively at peoples mindsets and has come to realize that an ability can be
seen in one of two ways:In the first outlook, an ability is fixed and must be proven. In the
second, it is developable through learning. If one adopts the learning philosophy, failure is
not about making mistakes or being fired from a job. It is about not growing, not fulfilling
ones potential.19 To adopt a learning mentality requires being able to admit ones weak-
nesses and shortcomings, which takes courage and integrity as well as a safe environment.
Given this, establishing such a culture and environment is an essential part of NASAs de-
briefing process.20

14. (Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer,2005).

15. (Research Councils UK, 2001). For additional skills, see also (Siddique etal.,2012).
16. ( J. M.T. Thompson,2013).
17. See (Seelig, 2009)[pp.7198].
18. (Ackoff,2006).
19. (Dweck, 2006)[pp.1516].
20. (Rogers, 2010)[p.311].

Dealing with Complications 233

234

Keep a softfocus. Psychologist Barbara Spellman notes that having a question in mind
is necessary to be able to process a large mass of information. But she also points out that
being too focused on one question may induce people to miss information that is right in
front of them.21 (Recall the gorilla of Chapter6.) So, if at all possible, you should keep some
bandwidth to retain some situational awareness and to pursue targets of opportunity that may
appear during your resolution process (see section on serendipitous findings in Chapter4).
Trust carefully. If done well, deception is likely difficult to detect.22 People can barely
discriminate lies from truths. In fact, a meta-analysis concluded that we are only slightly
better at detecting deception than what we could achieve by flipping a coin (54%).23
Deception detection seems to improve significantly, in specific conditions, when assisted
by technology, such as a polygraph.24 New technology, such as the Preliminary Credibility
Assessment Screening System, that rely on sensors to measure the electrical conductivity of
the skin and changes in blood-flow also seem to provide improved results.25
If you do not have access to these types of technologies, however, the outlook is not very
promising. Indeed, research indicates that training or prior experience do not improve ones
ability to detect deception.26
Spellman notes that detecting deception starts with having the motivation to look for
patterns of deception in a source or having the belief that such patterns may exist.27 Also, it
appears that there are cues to deception. In a study, social psychologist DePaulo and her col-
leagues found that liars seem less forthcoming, tell less compelling tales, make a more nega-
tive impression, and are tenser than truth tellers.28 They warn, however, that the association
of such cues with deceit is only probabilistic and, therefore, additional evidence is needed.
In this context, practical guidelines are limited. So you may be best served following the
Russian saying:trust, but verify.

2.2. BEC OMEWI SER

If we think of wisdom as an ability to judiciously balance opposites, then being wise goes
a considerable way toward making you an effective problem solver. Indeed, balancing op-
posites permeates all aspects of the problem-solving process:One has to balance thinking
creatively with thinking critically; acting with humility with showing decisiveness; being

21. See (National Research Council, 2011b) [pp.128129]. See also (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006)[p.149150].
22. For example, ( Jung & Reidenberg, 2007), (Simmons, Nides, Rand, Wise, & Tashkin, 2000). For a review, see
(Williams,2012).
23. (Bond & DePaulo,2006).
24. (National Research Council Committee on National Statistics, 2003)[p.4].
25. See (Senter, Waller, & Krapohl, 2006), (National Research Council, 2010)[pp.1316].
26. (Meissner & Kassin, 2002), (Garrido, Masip, & Herrero,2004).
27. (Fischhoff & Chauvin, 2011)[pp.126127].
28. (DePaulo etal., 2003). Awidely held stereotype of the behavior of liars, gaze aversion, bears negligible relationships
to lying (Global Deception Research Team,2006).

234 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 235

analytical with following ones intuition;29 speaking upeven when not in a position of
authorityand letting go;30 and soon.31
Adapt asyougo. It may be useful to think of solving CIDNI problems as a project in
itself; and, in project management, things go wrong.32 When they do, you need to judi-
ciously balance your original plans with your reaction to the new set of circumstances.
Balance humility and decisiveness. Using a Platonic definition of wisdomknowing
what you know and knowing what you do not knowmanagement professors Pfeffer
and Sutton advise that people should adopt beliefs that enable them to keep acting with
knowledge while doubting what they know, and to openly acknowledge the imperfections
in even their best ideas along the way.33 They further note that knowing what you know and
knowing what you do not know enables people to act on their (present) knowledge while
doubting what they know, so they can do things now, but can keep learning along the way.34
Michael Thompson agrees, observing that knowing what you do not know is perhaps even
more important than knowing what you do know (italics his).35
Balancing self confidence and insecurity can be particularly challenging because, as
Cornell psychologists Justin Kruger and David Dunning observed, people with limited
knowledge in a specific domain not only reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompe-
tence prevents them from realizingit.36
Seek feedback. Similar to intelligence analysis, complex problem solving is an exercise
in judgment under uncertainty, a task where we face many shortcomings.37 In particular, we
easily experience higher confidence than evidence warrants. One debiasing technique to
reduce overconfidence is to question why we may be particularly confident in an outcome.38
Another technique is the timely use of high-quality feedback, which can help us better cali-
brate our judgments.39 Therefore, you should seek feedbackoften.
Use your intuition judiciously. Although this book has focused primarily on the ra-
tional side of problem solving, intuition and instincts are an integral part of the process.
Indeed, they help in deciding, for instance, which hypotheses to test first, which aspects of
your analysis to push further, or which style of communication will be most effective for a
given audience.

29. Or risk one of two ailments, paralysis by analysis and extinction by instinct; see (Langley, 1995). See also
(Makridakis & Gaba, 1998)[p.21].
30. For an example in airline crews, see (Ginnett, 2010)[pp.9899].
31. Management professors Bazerman and Moore introduce another definition of wisdom as the ability to recognize that
we (you!) are biased and to account for it (Bazerman & Moore, 2008)[p.180].
32. (Frame, 2003)[p.17].
33. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006)[pp.5253].
34. (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006)[p.103].
35. ( J. M.T. Thompson,2013).
36. This is called the Dunning-Kruger effect; see (Kruger & Dunning,1999).
37. (Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky,1982).
38. (L. L.Thompson, 2012)[pp.199200].
39. (Arkes, 2001), (National Research Council, 2011a) [p.25], (National Research Council, 2011b) [p.150].

Dealing with Complications 235

236

Zoologist and Nobel laureate Peter Medawar advises young researchers to see science as
imaginative guesswork that involves the exercise of common sense supported by a strong
understanding.40 British mathematician John Littlewood notes that most of the best
work starts in hopeless muddle and floundering, sustained on the smell that something is
there.41 Following your intuition and being impartially analytical are both necessary con-
ditions for success. Neither one can compensate for the other, and over-reliance on either
one can be detrimental. So, rather than attempting to ignore your intuition and instincts, it
seems that the better approach is to use them, albeit reflectively.42 As my mentor and good
friend, Pol Spanos, says:intuition is a great servant but a terrible master.
Learn tooperate withless-than-ideal evidence. We have advocated for an evidence-
based approach. As discussed in Chapter6, at least in medicine, the highest-quality evidence
is that derived from randomized trials. In some settings, however, such evidence is not avail-
able nor is it necessary. This was illustrated in an article published in the 2003 Christmas
issue of the British Medical Journalwhich features spoofs. Gordon Smith and Jill Pell, the
authors, looked at the effectiveness of parachutes in preventing death or major trauma on
people jumping out of airplanes. Noting that the effectiveness of parachutes had not been
subject to rigorous evaluation by using randomized controlled trials, they concluded that,
everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence-based medicine orga-
nized and participated in a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial
of the parachute.43 In such a study, two groups would be formed at random. Participants
in one group would receive parachutes and, since it would be placebo-controlled, partici-
pants in the other group would receive backpacks (control group). Neither the participants
nor the organizers would know which group is which (double blind). The crossover part
means that, after some time, participants would switch groups. That is, no matter how they
were randomly assigned initially, participants at one point or another would be assigned to
the control group, jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. The article makes a good
point that using only highest-quality evidence is not always possible. Sometimes, observa-
tions from less rigorous analyses are sufficient. Here, as at many other points in the resolu-
tion process, you must judiciously balance the peculiarities of your situation with quality
standards to decide what makes sense for the case athand.

2.3. PRACT I C E
In many instances, the only difference between the stellar and the good is the hours of prac-
tice.44 Many ideas in this book look simple. But the process of applying these ideas and
getting to the answers is not. It is like tennis:experienced players may make it look easy,

40. (Medawar, 1979)[p.93].

41. (McIntyre,1997).
42. See also (Greenhalgh, 2002)and (Sheppard, Macatangay, Colby, & Sullivan, 2009)[pp.3637].
43. (Smith & Pell,2003).
44. See (Ness, 2012)[p.7].

236 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 237

but you cannot become a good player just by reading about it. You have to practice.45 Since
Simon and Chases 1973 paper about chess (How does one become a master in the first
place? The answer is practicethousands of hours of practice.),46 the value of deliberate
practice in acquiring expertise has been established in a number of activities, including
music47 and sports.48 It stands to reason that developing expertise in solving complex prob-
lems is no different.
Develop resilience. Practicing means that you will face some setbacks, some of which
you will be able to avoid and some that will be outside of your influence. These setbacks are
not as important as how you confront them. Positively adjusting to adversitythat is, having
resilienceis therefore critical. The good news is that you can increase your resilience, for
instance, by promoting positive emotions (through demonstrating optimism and appreci-
ating and using humor), increasing your cognitive flexibility, having spirituality, developing
strong social supports, and developing an active coping style (including exercising).49

3. WHAT ABOUTHARRY?
Harry is not my friend Johns dog. It is my dog. Apart from that and changing his name, his
story is entirely true. He went missing one Wednesday afternoon while Iwas teaching, and
initially my wife Justyna and Iwere pretty confident that the housekeeper had, if not kid-
napped him, at least opened the gate for him to escape. After all, what is the probability that
the dog should go missingwhen he had not for a long timeon the very day that we fired
our unstable and threatening housekeeper?
So, in my mind, kidnapping it was, and Iwas torn between calling the police and calling
the housekeeper. Needless to say, if Ihad chosen the latter, Iwould have used a few French
expletives. But luckily, weand by we Imean Justynadecided to first ask the neighbors
if they had seen anything. When one of them told us that he had seen Harry by himself in
front of the house after the yard crew had been there, my entire outlook changed.
The picture still was not clear: Because Harry barks loudly when the yard crew comes,
because he was seen in front of the house after they had arrived, and yet the crew reported
not having seen or heard him that day, something did not add up. Maybe the neighbor was
mistaken (or lied) or maybe the crew had realized that they had screwed up and tried to
cover it up. We decided to trust our neighbors testimony, which turned out to be the right
call, and went to look for Harry as a missing dog and found him in less than an hour. All that
without insulting the housekeeper.

45. (Polya, 1945)[p.4]. For the superiority of experience-based training over didactic lecturing in acquiring negotiation
skills, see (L. L.Thompson, 2012)[p.185].
46. (Simon & Chase,1973).
47. (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Rmer,1993).
48. See (Baker & Ct, 2003), (Ericsson, 2004)for reviews.
49. (Southwick, Vythilingam, & Charney, 2005). See also ( Jackson, Firtko, & Edenborough,2007).

Dealing with Complications 237

238

I would be lying if Ireported that while looking for Harry Iwrote a what card, a why
card, and a how card; developed a diagnostic issue map and a solution map; looked for peer-
reviewed evidence on the likelihood of various causes for the disappearance of pets; used a
multiattribute utility decision tool; and captured my conclusions in a carefully crafted mes-
sage that Idelivered to Justyna to convince her that Harry probably had not been kidnapped
and that we should look for him as such. Indeed, as we touched on in Chapter1, Harry
going missing is one of those types of problems where one does not need to apply the full
methodology. Idid, however, run through these steps mentally, and Icredit this mental pro-
cess for helping me switch from a intuitive/System 1 thinking mode (call the housekeeper
to accuse her and, since Iam being honest, most likely insult her, too) to a reflective/System
2 mode. So, not only did the methodology help us find our dog faster, it also saved me the
embarrassment of having to apologize to that poor housekeeper.
As for the yard crew, we gave them the benefit of the doubt, and we left it atthat.
Then, a few weeks later, Harry disappeared again. We had not fired our housekeeper that
day, but the disappearance again happened on the day of the week that the lawn crew had
come. It took us only a superficial Bayesian analysis to decide that this was no coincidence.
So we had a conversation with the crew. To their credit, Harry has not gone missingsince.
Well, not because of them, thatis.

NOTES
Too much ofa goodthing? Some argue that even an excess of excellence is not desirable
because it can undermine success (Coman & Ronen,2009).

238 Strategic Thinking in Complex Problem Solving

 239

REFERENCES

CHAPTER1

Adams, J. L. (2001). Conceptual blockbusting:Aguide to better ideas. Cambridge, MA:BasicBooks.

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with
evidence-based strategies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2),4864.
Arkes, H. R., & Kajdasz, J. (2011). Intuitive theories of behavior. In B. Fischhoff & C. Chauvin (Eds.),
Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations (pp. 143168). Washington, DC:National
AcademiesPress.
Arkes, H. R., Wortmann, R. L., Saville, P. D., & Harkness, A. R. (1981). Hindsight bias among physicians
weighing the likelihood of diagnoses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(2),252.
Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 9(2), 215233.
Bardwell, L. V. (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental
Management, 15(5), 603612.
Basadur, M. (1995). Optimal ideation-evaluation ratios. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1),6375.
Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1986). Training effects on attitudes toward divergent thinking
among manufacturing engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4),612.
Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and
behaviors work together:Acausal process model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 77100.
Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413432). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley
&Sons.
Beaufre, A. (1963). Introduction la stratgie (Vol. 6): Centre dtudes de politique trangre.
Blair, C. (2000). Hitlers U-boat war:The hunters 19391942 (Vol. 1). NewYork:Modern Library.
Brightman, H. J. (1978). Differences in ill-structured problem solving along the organizational hierarchy.
Decision Sciences, 9(1),118.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1),2943.
240

Careers Research and Advisory Centre. (2010). Researcher Development Statement. Retrieved from https://
www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/rdf-related/researcher-development-statement-rds-vitae.pdf
Chi, M. T., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations:How students study
and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145182.
Dawson, N. V., Connors, A. F., Speroff, T., Kemka, A., Shaw, P., & Arkes, H. R. (1993). Hemodynamic assessment
in managing the critically ill:Is physician confidence warranted? Medical Decision Making, 13(3), 258266.
Feynman, R. P. (1997). Surely youre joking, Mr. Feynman!:Adventures of a curious character:WW Norton &
Company.
Feynman, R. P. (1998). Cargo cult science. Engineering and Science, 37(7),1013.
Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncer-
tainty:Heuristics and biases (pp. 422444). NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Gauch, H. G. (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Gawande, A. (2009). The Checklist Manifesto. NewYork:Picador.
Golec, L. (2009). The art of inconsistency:Evidence-based practice my way. Journal of Perinatology, 29(9),
600602.
Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning:towards understanding the complementarities.
Management Decision, 40(5), 456462.
Grasso, D., & Burkins, M. B. (2010). Beyond technology:The holistic advantage. In D. Grasso & M. B. Burkins
(Eds.), Holistic engineering education (pp. 110). NewYork:Springer.
Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems:The social construction of leadership. Human Relations,
58(11), 14671494.
Grol, R. (2001). Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice.
Medical Care, 39(8), II-46II-54.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (2002). Smart choices:Apractical guide to making better decisions.
NewYork:RandomHouse.
Hayes, J. R. (1989). The complete problem solver (2nd ed.). NewYork:Routledge.
Heracleous, L. (1998). Strategic thinking or strategic planning? Long Range Planning, 31(3), 481487.
Heyland, D. K., Dhaliwal, R., Day, A., Jain, M., & Drover, J. (2004). Validation of the Canadian clinical practice
guidelines for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adult patients:Results of a prospec-
tive observational study.* Critical Care Medicine, 32(11), 22602266.
Holley, S. (1997). Handsome Dan takes a bite out of Yale history. Yale Herald, (23), Summer.
Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 234259). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition,
15(4), 332340.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving
learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1),6594.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(4),6385.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems:Ahandbook for designing problem-solving learning environ-
ments. NewYork:Routledge
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. NewYork:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Karvonen, K. (2000). The beauty of simplicity. Paper presented at the 2000 conference on Universal Usability.
Katzenbach, J. R. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-
performance organization.
NewYork:HarperCollins.

240 References
 241

Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing.
Psychological Review, 94(2),211.
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-w. (1989). Hypothesis testing in rule discovery:Strategy, structure, and content. Journal
of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(4),596.
Kotovsky, K. (2003). Problem solvingLarge/small, hard/easy, conscious/nonconscious, problem-space/
problem-solverThe issue of dichotomization. In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology
of problem solving (pp. 373383), Cambridge, UK:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Kulkarni, D., & Simon, H. A. (1988). The processes of scientific discovery:The strategy of experimentation.
Cognitive Science, 12(2), 139175.
Leach, B. (2013, January 13). Dognappings: organised gangs behind a surge of dog thefts across the coun-
try. The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/pets/9797749/Dognappings-
organised-gangs-behind-a-surge-of-dog-thefts-across-the-country.html.
Leung, O., & Bartunek, J. M. (2012). Enabling evidence-based management:Bridging the gap between ac-
ademics and practioners. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management
(pp. 165180). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Liedtka, J. M. (1998). Strategic thinking:Can it be taught? Long Range Planning, 31(1), 120129.
Makridakis, S., & Gaba, A. (1998). Judgment:its role and value for strategy. Fontainebleau, France:INSEAD.
Manathunga, C., Lant, P., & Mellick, G. (2006). Imagining an interdisciplinary doctoral pedagogy. Teaching in
Higher Education, 11(3), 365379.
Manathunga, C., Lant, P., & Mellick, G. (2007). Developing professional researchers:research students gradu-
ate attributes. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(1),1936.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions:Theory, cases, and techniques.
NewYork:Wiley.
McIntyre, M. E. (1998). Lucidity and science III:Hypercredulity, quantum mechanics, and scientific truth.
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 23(1),2970.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review, 72(1), 107114.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2014). The job outlook for the class of2014.
National Research Council. (2011a). Intelligence analysis for tomorrow:Advances from the behavioral and social
sciences. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
National Research Council. (2011b). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
National Research Council. (2012). Discipline-based education research:Understanding and improving learning in
undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
National Research Council. (2014). Convergence:Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical
sciences, engineering, and beyond. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
Ness, R. B. (2012). Tools for innovative thinking in epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(8),
733738.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General
Psychology, 2(2),175.
bound? Educational Researcher,
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-
18(1),1625.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006a). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1),62.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006b). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense:Profiting from evidence-
based management:Harvard BusinessPress.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2007). Suppose we took evidence-based management seriously:Implications for
reading and writing management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 153155.

241
References
242

Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E.
Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 330). NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Rauen, C. A., Chulay, M., Bridges, E., Vollman, K. M., & Arbour, R. (2008). Seven evidence-based practice
habits:Putting some sacred cows out to pasture. Critical Care Nurse, 28(2), 98123.
Reeves, J., Denicolo, P., Metcalfe, J., & Roberts, J. (2012). The vitae researcher development framework and
researcher development statement:Methodology and validation report. Cambridge:The Careers Research
and Advisory Centre (CRAC) Ltd. Retrieved from https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/rdf-related/
researcher-development-framework-rdf-vitae-methodology-report-2012.pdf.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity:Understanding leadership from a creative
problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1),5577.
Research Councils UK. (2001). Joint statement of the Research Councils/AHRBs skills training requirements for
research students. London:Research CouncilsUK.
Rittel, H. W. (1972). On the planning crisis:Systems analysis of the first and second generations. Institute of Urban
and Regional Development.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as evidence-based management? Academy of Management
Review, 31(2), 256269.
Rousseau, D. M. (2012). The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management. NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 84101.
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medi-
cine:What it is and what it isnt. BMJ:British Medical Journal, 312(7023),71.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., & Mantel, S. P. (1998). Selective hypothesis testing.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(2), 197220.
Savransky, S. D. (2002). Engineering of creativity:Introduction to TRIZ methodology of inventive problem solving.
Boca Raton, FL:CRCPress.
Sheldon, T. A., Cullum, N., Dawson, D., Lankshear, A., Lowson, K., Watt, I., Wright, J. (2004). Whats the
evidence that NICE guidance has been implemented? Results from a national evaluation using time series
analysis, audit of patients notes, and interviews. BMJ, 329(7473),999.
Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers:Designing for the future
of the field. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Silver, N. (2012). The signal and the noise:Why so many predictions failbut some dont. NewYork:Penguin.
Simon, H. A. (1974). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3), 181201.
Smith, G. F. (1988). Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring. Management Science, 34(12),
14891506.
Smith, M. U. (1991). A view from biology. In M. U. Smith (Ed.), Toward a unified theory of problem solving:Views
from the content domains (pp. 121). NewYork:Routledge.
Smith, S. M., & Ward, T. B. (2012). Cognition and the creation of ideas. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 456474). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Straus, S. E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2011). Evidence-based medicine:How to practice
and teach it (4th ed.). Toronto, Canada:Elsevier.
Straus, S. E., & Jones, G. (2004). What has evidence based medicine done for us? BMJ, 329(7473), 987988.
Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? Ameta-synthesis of meta-analyses com-
paring PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1),4.
Tetlock, P. (2005). Expert political judgment:How good is it? How can we know? Princeton UniversityPress.
Theocharis, T., & Psimopoulos, M. (1987). Where science has gone wrong. Nature, 329(6140), 595598.

242 References
 243

Thomke, S., & Feinberg, B. (2009). Design thinking and innovation at Apple. Harvard Business School,112.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,
211(4481), 453458.
Twardy, C. (2010). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95116.
United Nations. Millennium Development Goals. Retrieved May 9, 2013 from http://www.un.org/
millenniumgoals/
VanGundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of structured problem solving. NewYork:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Weiner, J. (2014, September, 26). The STEM paradoxes: Graduates lack of non-technical skills, and not
enough women. The WashingtonPost.
Welch, H. G. (2015). Less medicine more health: 7 assumptions that drive too much medical care. Boston,
MA:BeaconPress.
Wenke, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2003). Is success or failure at solving complex problems related to intellec-
tual ability? In J. E. Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 87126).
NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Woods, D. R. (2000). An EvidenceBased Strategy for Problem Solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(4),
443459.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.
Science, 316(5827), 10361039.

CHAPTER2

Adams, J. L. (2001). Conceptual blockbusting:Aguide to better ideas. Cambridge, MA:BasicBooks.

Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects:are humans less rational than lower
animals? Psychological Bulletin, 125(5),591.
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 35(1), 124140.
Austhink. (2006). Argument Mapping Tutorials. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://austhink.com/
reason/tutorials/
Bardwell, L. V. (1991). Problem-framing: A perspective on environmental problem-solving. Environmental
Management, 15(5), 603612.
Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413432). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Berger, W. (2010). CAD Monkeys, Dinosaur Babies, and T-Shaped People:Inside the World of Design Thinking and
How It Can Spark Creativity and Innovation. NewYork:Penguin.
Brownell, K. D., Farley, T., Willett, W. C., Popkin, B. M., Chaloupka, F. J., Thompson, J. W., & Ludwig, D.
S. (2009). The public health and economic benefits of taxing sugar-sweetened beverages. New England
Journal of Medicine, 361(16), 15991605.
Burke, W. W. (2014). Organization change:Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks:CA.Sage.
Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping:Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, UK:John
Wiley &Sons.
Cousins, R. D. (1995). Why isnt every physicist a Bayesian? American Journal of Physics, 63(5), 398410.
Davis, I., Keeling, D., Schreier, P., & Williams, A. (2007). The McKinsey approach to problem solving. McKinsey
Staff Paper (66),27.
de La Fontaine, J. (1882). The Fables of La Fontaine (E. Wright & J. Gibbs, Trans.). Project Gutenbergs
The Fables of La Fontaine.
DeHaan, R. L. (2011). Teaching creative science thinking. Science, 334(6062), 14991500.

243
References
244

Dougherty, D., & Heller, T. (1994). The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms.
Organization Science, 5(2), 200218.
Efron, B. (1986). Why isnt everyone a Bayesian? The American Statistician, 40(1),15.
Eisner, H. (2002). Essentials of project and systems engineering management (2nd ed.):NewYork:John Wiley &
Sons.
Eliasson, J. (2009). A costbenefit analysis of the Stockholm congestion charging system. Transportation
Research Part A:Policy and Practice, 43(4), 468480.
Eliasson, J., Hultkrantz, L., Nerhagen, L., & Rosqvist, L. S. (2009). The Stockholm congestioncharging trial
2006:Overview of effects. Transportation Research Part A:Policy and Practice, 43(3), 240250.
Evans, J. S. B. (2012). Dual-process theories of deductive reasoning: facts and fallacies. In K. J. Holyoak &
R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 115). New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Frame, J. D. (2003). Managing projects in organizations:how to make the best use of time, techniques, and people.
San Francisco, CA:John Wiley &Sons.
Gawande, A. (2009). The Checklist Manifesto. NewYork:Picador.
Gershon, N., & Page, W. (2001). What storytelling can do for information visualization. Communications of the
ACM, 44(8),3137.
Glckner, A., & Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models:Acategorisation of processes underlying
intuitive judgement and decision making. Thinking & Reasoning, 16(1),125.
Grasso, D., & Martinelli, D. (2010). Holistic engineering. In D. Grasso & M. Brown Burkins (Eds.), Holistic
engineering education (pp. 1115). NewYork:Springer.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (2002). Smart choices:Apractical guide to making better decisions.
NewYork:RandomHouse.
Heuer, R. J., & Pherson, R. H. (2011). Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. Washington,
DC:CQPress.
Institute of Medicine. (2014). The current state of obesity solutions in the United States: Workshop summary.
Washington, DC:The National AcademiesPress.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(4),6385.
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality:Aperspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel
Prize Lecture, 8, 351401.
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American
Economic Review, 93(5), 14491475.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. NewYork:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited:Attribute substitution in intuitive judg-
ment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases:The psychology of intuitive
judgment (pp. 4981). NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise:a failure to disagree. American Psychologist,
64(6),515.
Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2011). Before you make that big decision. Harvard Business Review,
89(6),5060.
Kaplan, E. H. (2011). Operations research and intelligence analysis. In B. Fischhoff & C. Chauvin (Eds.),
Intelligence analysis: Behavioral and social scientific foundations (pp. 3156). Washington, DC: National
AcademiesPress.
Kerzner, H. R. (2003). Project management:Asystems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (8th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley &Sons.

244 References
 245

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal:Atypology and critical
analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149188.
MacDonald, N., & Picard, A. (2009). A plea for clear language on vaccine safety. Canadian Medical Association
Journal, 180(7), 697698.
Mackendrick, A. (2004). On film-making:An introduction to the craft of the director. NewYork:Faber and Faber,Inc.
Markman, A. B., Wood, K. L., Linsey, J. S., Murphy, J. T., & Laux, J. P. (2009). Supporting innovation by promot-
ing analogical reasoning. In A. B. Markman & K. L. Wood (Eds.), Tools for innovation:The science behind the
practical methods that drive new ideas (pp. 85103). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
McKee, R. (1997). Story:Substance, structure, style, and the principles of screenwriting. NewYork:HarperCollins.
McKee, R., & Fryer, B. (2003). Storytelling that moves people. Harvard Business Review, 81(6),5155.
Minto, B. (2009). The pyramid principle:Logic in writing and thinking. Harlow, UK:Pearson Education.
Moulton, C.-a., Regehr, G., Lingard, L., Merritt, C., & MacRae, H. (2010). Slowing down when you
should:Initiators and influences of the transition from the routine to the effortful. Journal of Gastrointestinal
Surgery, 14(6), 10191026.
National Research Council. (2011). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Ness, R. B. (2012a). Innovation generation:How to produce creative and useful scientific ideas. NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Ness, R. B. (2012b). Tools for innovative thinking in epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(8),
733738.
PADI. (2009). Rescue Diver Course. Professional Association of Diving Instructors.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E.
Davidson & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 330). NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Ramanujam, R., & Rousseau, D. M. (2006). The challenges are organizational not just clinical. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 811827.
Rider, Y., & Thomason, N. (2010). Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of argument mapping:LAMP guides
the way to better thinking. In A. Okada, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge
Cartography:Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 113130). London:Springer.
Rittel, H. W. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the First and Second Generations.
Bedriftsokonomen, 8, 390396.
Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science:An illusion of explanatory depth.
Cognitive Science, 26(5), 521562.
Scapens, R. W. (2006). Understanding management accounting practices: A personal journey. The British
Accounting Review, 38(1),130.
Schauer, F. (2009). Thinking like a lawyer: A new introduction to legal reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Shaw, M. E. (1958). Some effects of irrelevant information upon problem-solving by small groups. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 47(1),3337.
Sherman, L. W. (2002). Evidence-based policing: Social organization of information for social control.
In E. Waring & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and social organization (pp. 217248). New Brunswick,
NJ:Transactions Publishers.
Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research:Understanding
and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
Smith, G. F. (1988). Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring. Management Science, 34(12),
14891506.

245
References
246

Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality
debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645665.
Steingraber, S. (2010). Living downstream: An ecologists personal investigation of cancer and the environment.
Cambridge, MA:Da CapoPress.
Straus, S. E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2011). Evidence-based medicine:How to practice
and teach it (4th ed.). Toronto, CA:Elsevier.
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with:The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS
One, 6(2), e16782.
Thompson, J. M.T. (2013). Advice to a young researcher:with reminiscences of a life in science. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A:Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1993),
20120425.
Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. The Academy of Management
Executive, 17(1), 96109.
Thompson, L. L. (2012). The mind and heart of the negotiator (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:PrenticeHall.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,
211(4481), 453458.
Twardy, C. (2010). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95116.
von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research:Cambridge, UK:Cambridge
UniversityPress.

CHAPTER3

Adams, J. L. (2001). Conceptual blockbusting:Aguide to better ideas. Cambridge, MA:BasicBooks.

Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333,2.
Andersen, B., & Fagerhaug, T. (2006). Root cause analysis:simplified tools and techniques. Milwaukee, WI:ASQ
QualityPress.
Anderson, C. (2004). The long tail. Wired, 12(10), 170177.
Anderson, T., Schum, D., & Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of evidence. NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Arkes, H. R., Christensen, C., Lai, C., & Blumer, C. (1987). Two methods of reducing overconfidence.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 133144.
Arnheiter, E. D., & Maleyeff, J. (2005). The integration of lean management and Six Sigma. The TQM Magazine,
17(1),518.
Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 9(2), 215233.
Austhink. (2006, December 7, 2006). Argument Mapping Tutorials. Retrieved January 14,2014.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556559.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
4(10), 829839.
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Market orientation, learning orientation and product innovation:delving
into the organizations black box. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(1),523.
Barrier, P. A., Li, J. T.-C., & Jensen, N. M. (2003, February). Two words to improve physician-patient communica-
tion:what else? In Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 78(2), 211214, Elsevier.
Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413432). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Berger, W. (2010). CAD monkeys, dinosaur babies, and T-shaped people:Inside the world of design thinking and
how it can spark creativity and innovation. NewYork:Penguin.

246 References
 247

Berner, E. S., & Graber, M. L. (2008). Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. The American
Journal of Medicine, 121(5), S2S23.
Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Consumer decision making. Handbook of consumer behav-
ior, 44(2),5084.
Blessing, S. B., & Ross, B. H. (1996). Content effects in problem categorization and problem solving. Journal of
Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(3),792.
Bommer, J. J., & Scherbaum, F. (2008). The use and misuse of logic trees in probabilistic seismic hazard analy-
sis. Earthquake Spectra, 24(4), 9971009.
Breyfogle F. W.III, (2003). Implementing Six Sigma:smarter solutions using statistical methods. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.
Brinkmann, A. (2003). Graphical knowledge displayMind mapping and concept mapping as efficient tools in
mathematics education. Mathematics Education Review, 16,3548.
Browne, G. J., & Pitts, M. G. (2004). Stopping rule use during information search in design problems.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 208224.
Browne, G. J., Pitts, M. G., & Wetherbe, J. C. (2007). Cognitive stopping rules for terminating information
search in online tasks. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 89104.
Brownlow, S., & Watson, S. (1987). Structuring multi-attribute value hierarchies. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 38(4), 309317.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y., & Simester, D. (2011). Goodbye pareto principle, hello long tail:The effect of search
costs on the concentration of product sales. Management Science, 57(8), 13731386.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. J., & Smith, M. D. (2006). From niches to riches:The anatomy of the long tail. Sloan
Management Review, 47(4),6771.
Buckingham Shum, S. J., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V. M.E., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation
and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267300.
Buzan, T. (1976). Use both sides of your brain. NewYork:Dutton.
Cavallucci, D., Lutz, P., & Kucharavy, D. (September 29October 2, 2002). Converging in problem formula-
tion:a different path in design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Design Engineering Technical
Conferences and Computer and Information in Engineering Conference, Montral, Canada.
Chamberlin, T. C. (1965). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 148(3671), 754759.
Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and
preinventive structure:The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35(1),2938.
Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). Putting blinkers on a blind man. Providing cognitive support for
creative processes with environmental cues. In A. B. Markman & K. L. Wood (Eds.), Tools for innovation:
The science behind the practical methods that drive new ideas (pp. 4874). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Clark, R. M. (2010). Intelligence analysis:a target-centric approach. Washington, DC:CQpress.
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1996). Building your companys vision. Harvard Business Review, 74(5),6577.
Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping:Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester, UK:John
Wiley &Sons.
Cox, M., Irby, D. M., & Bowen, J. L. (2006). Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning.
New England Journal of Medicine, 355(21), 22172225.
Croskerry, P. (2002). Achieving quality in clinical decision making:cognitive strategies and detection of bias.
Academic Emergency Medicine, 9(11), 11841204.
Davies, M. (2010). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping:what are the differences and do
they matter? Higher Education, 62(3), 279301. doi:10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking:Creativity step by step. NewYork:Harper Perennial.
Diffenbach, J. (1982). Influence diagrams for complex strategic issues. Strategic Management Journal, 3(2),
133146.

247
References
248

Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism:Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and
nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4),568.
DubRioux, L., & Russo, J. E. (1988). An availability bias in professional judgment. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 1(4), 223237.
Dufresne, R. J., Gerace, W. J., Hardiman, P. T., & Mestre, J. P. (1992). Constraining novices to perform expert-
like problem analyses:Effects on schema acquisition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(3), 307331.
Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012a). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701718). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012b). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (p. 17). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Duncker, K., & Lees, L. S. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs,58(5).
Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., & Stewart, I. (2010). The evaluation of argument mapping as a learning
tool:Comparing the effects of map reading versus text reading on comprehension and recall of arguments.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5(1),1622.
Eden, C. (1992). On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 261265.
Eden, C. (2004). Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. European Journal of Operational
Research, 159(3), 673686.
Eisenfhr, F., Weber, M., & Langer, T. (2010). Rational decision making. Heidelberg, Germany:Springer.
Elstein, A. S. (2009). Thinking about diagnostic thinking:a 30-year perspective. Advances in Health Sciences
Education, 14(1),718.
Elstein, A. S., & Schwarz, A. (2002). Evidence base of clinical diagnosis:Clinical problem solving and diagnostic
decision making:selective review of the cognitive literature. BMJ:British Medical Journal, 324(7339),729.
Enkel, E., & Gassmann, O. (2010). Creative imitation:exploring the case of crossindustry innovation. R&D
Management, 40(3), 256270.
Eppler, M. J. (2006). A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual meta-
phors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Information Visualization, 5(3),
202210.
Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1997). Positive affect facilitates integration of information and de-
creases anchoring in reasoning among physicians. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
72(1), 117135.
Fenton, N., Neil, M., & Lagnado, D. A. (2012). A general structure for legal arguments about evidence using
Bayesian networks. Cognitive Science, 37(1), 61102.
Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers:where are we? Where do we go from here? Journal of
Management Studies, 29(3), 267285.
First, M. B. (2005). Mutually exclusive versus co-occurring diagnostic categories:the challenge of diagnostic
comorbidity. Psychopathology, 38(4), 206210. doi:10.1159/000086093
Fischhoff, B. (1982). Debiasing. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncer-
tainty:Heuristics and biases (pp. 422444). NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). Fault trees:Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to
problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 4(2),330.
Gavetti, G., & Rivkin, J. W. (2005). How strategists really think. Harvard Business Review, 83(4),5463.
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping:Atheoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155170.
Gentner, D., & Toupin, C. (1986). Systematicity and surface similarity in the development of analogy. Cognitive
Science, 10(3), 277300.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306355.

248 References
 249

Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (2009). Decision analysis for management judgment (4th ed.). Chichester, UK:John
Wiley &Sons.
Green, A. E., & Dunbar, K. N. (2012). Mental function as genetic expression:Emerging insights from cognitive
neurogenetics. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning
(p. 90). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Grnroos, C. (1997). From marketing mix to relationship marketing:towards a paradigm shift in marketing.
Management Decision, 35(4), 322339.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (1995). Total quality management:empirical, conceptual, and practical issues.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 309342.
Hafner, C. D. (1987). Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. Paper presented at the Proceedings
of the 1st international conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. Boston,MA.
Halford, G. S., Baker, R., McCredden, J. E., & Bain, J. D. (2005). How many variables can humans process?
Psychological Science, 16(1),7076.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business
Review, 76(5),4758.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (2002). Smart choices:Apractical guide to making better decisions.
NewYork:RandomHouse.
Hepler, A. B., Dawid, A. P., & Leucari, V. (2007). Object-oriented graphical representations of complex patterns
of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(14), 275293.
Heuer, R. J., & Pherson, R. H. (2011). Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. Washington,
DC:CQPress.
Higgins, J. M. (1994). 101 creative problem solving techniques:The handbook of new ideas for business. Winter
Park:FL:New Management Publishing Company.
Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 234259). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition,
15(4), 332340.
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13(3),
295355.
Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1997). The analogical mind. American Psychologist, 52(1),35.
Hora, S. C. (2007). Eliciting probabilities from experts. In W. Edwards, R. F. Miles, & D. von Winterfeldt
(Eds.), Advances in decision analysis:From foundations to applications (pp. 129153). NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Howard, R. A. (1989). Knowledge maps. Management Science, 35(8), 903922.
Howard, R. A., & Matheson, J. E. (2005). Influence diagrams. Decision Analysis, 2(3), 127143.
Hurson, T. (2007). Think better. NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6),1122.
Ishikawa, K. (1982). Guide to quality control (2nd ed.). NewYork:Asian Productivity Organization.
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1),311.
Joseph, G.-M., & Patel, V. L. (1990). Domain knowledge and hypothesis generation in diagnostic reasoning.
Medical Decision Making, 10(1),3144.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. NewYork:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2000). Having trouble with your strategy?:Then map it. Harvard Business School
Publishing Corporation.

249
References
250

Kazancioglu, E., Platts, K., & Caldwell, P. (68 July, 2005). Visualization and visual modelling for strategic analy-
sis and problem-solving. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on
Information Visualisation. London,UK.
Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Keinan, G. (1987). Decision making under stress:scanning of alternatives under controllable and uncontrol-
lable threats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3),639.
Klayman, J., Soll, J. B., Gonzlez-Vallejo, C., & Barlas, S. (1999). Overconfidence:It depends on how, what, and
whom you ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(3), 216247.
Kulpa, Z. (1994). Diagrammatic representation and reasoning. Machine Graphics & Vision, 3, 77103.
Larkin, J. H., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive
Science, 11(1), 65100.
Lee, W.-S., Grosh, D. L., Tillman, F. A., & Lie, C. H. (1985). Fault tree analysis, methods, and applicationsa
review. Reliability, IEEE Transactions on, 34(3), 194203.
Leonhardt, D. (2005, October 13). Flexible as FedEx. San Diego Union Tribune.
Linsey, J., Tseng, I., Fu, K., Cagan, J., Wood, K., & Schunn, C. (2010). A study of design fixation, its mitigation
and perception in engineering design faculty. Journal of Mechanical Design, 132(4), 041003.
Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set
as predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115127. doi: 10.1016/
j.lindif.2007.05.003
Mahoney, M. J., & DeMonbreun, B. G. (1977). Psychology of the scientist:An analysis of problem-solving bias.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(3), 229238.
Maier, N. R. F. (1963). Problem-
solving discussions and conferences: Leadership methods and skills.
NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Martins, E., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation.
European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1),6474.
McIntyre, M. E. (1997). Lucidity and science I: Writing skills and the pattern perception hypothesis.
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 22(3), 199216.
McKenzie, C. R. (1997). Underweighting alternatives and overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 71(2), 141160.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two:some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological Review, 63(2),81.
Mingers, J. (1989). An empirical comparison of pruning methods for decision tree induction. Machine Learning,
4(2), 227243.
Minto, B. (2009). The pyramid principle:logic in writing and thinking. Harlow, UK:Pearson Education.
Mitchell, G. (2003). Mapping evidence law. FSU College of Law, Public Law Research Paper(75).
National Research Council. (2011). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Ness, R. B. (2012). Innovation generation:How to produce creative and useful scientific ideas. NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General
Psychology, 2(2),175.
Nixon, C. T., & Littlepage, G. E. (1992). Impact of meeting procedures on meeting effectiveness. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 6(3), 361369.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept maps and Vee diagrams:Two metacognitive tools to facilitate meaningful learn-
ing. Instructional Science, 19(1),2952.

250 References
 251

Novak, J. D., & Caas, A. J. (2006). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct them. Florida
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition,1.
Ohmae, K. (1982). The mind of the strategist. NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Okada, A., Shum, S. J.B., & Sherborne, T. (2010). Knowledge cartography:software tools and mapping techniques.
London, UK:Springer.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity:Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy
of Management Journal, 39(3), 607634.
Olson, D. L. (1996). Decision aids for selection problems. NewYork:Springer.
Orasanu, J. (2010). Flight crew decision-making. In B. G. Kanki, R. L. Helmreich, & J. Anca (Eds.), Crew
resource management (pp. 147180). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imaginationPrinciples and procedures of creative writing. New York: Charles
ScribnersSons.
Parnes, S. J. (1961). Effects of extended effort in creative problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology,
52(3),117.
Pfister, J. (2010). Is there a need for a maxim of politeness? Journal of Pragmatics, 42(5), 12661282.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.001
Pinar, A., Meza, J., Donde, V., & Lesieutre, B. (2010). Optimization strategies for the vulnerability analysis of
the electric power grid. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 20(4), 17861810.
Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146(3642), 347353.
Pretz, J. E., Naples, A. J., & Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Recognizing, defining, and representing problems. In J. E. Davidson
& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 330). NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Prime Ministers Strategy Unit. (2004). Strategy survival guide. Cabinet Office, Admiralty Arch, The Mall,
London SW1A2WH.
Quinlan, J. R. (1986). Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1(1), 81106.
Quinlan, J. R. (1987). Simplifying decision trees. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27(3), 221234.
Reed, C., Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2007). Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence.
The Knowledge Engineering Review, 22(01), 87. doi:10.1017/s0269888907001051
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity:Understanding leadership from a creative
problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1),5577.
Ribaux, O., & Margot, P. (1999). Inference structures for crime analysis and intelligence:the example of bur-
glary using forensic science data. Forensic Science International, 100(3), 193210.
Rider, Y., & Thomason, N. (2010). Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of argument mapping:LAMP guides
the way to better thinking. In A. Okada, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartog-
raphy:Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 113130). London:Springer.
Rooney, J. J., & Heuvel, L. N.V. (2004). Root cause analysis for beginners. Quality Progress, 37(7),4556.
Russo, J. E., & Kolzow, K. J. (1994). Where is the fault in fault trees? Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human
Perception and Performance, 20(1),17.
Russo, J. E., & Schoemaker, P. J. (1992). Managing overconfidence. Sloan Management Review, 33(2),717.
Sample, S. B., & Bennis, W. (2002). The contrarians guide to leadership. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Schoemaker, P. J. (1995). Scenario planning:a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36,25.
Schum, D. A. (1994). The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Evanston: IL: Northwestern
UniversityPress.
Shachter, R. D. (1986). Evaluating influence diagrams. Operations Research, 34(6), 871882.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483503.

251
References
252

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on cre-
ativity:Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933958.
Shum, S. B. (2003). The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In P. A. Kirschner, S. J.
Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation:Software tools for collaborative and edu-
cational sense making (pp. 324). London:Springer.
Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. In C. B. McGuire & R. Radner (Eds.), Decision and
organization (Vol. 1, pp. 161176). Amsterdam:North-Holland Publishing Company.
Simon, H. A. (1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1),120.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA:MITpress.
Smith, S. M., & Blankenship, S. E. (1991). Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving.
The American Journal of Psychology,6187.
Smith, S. M., & Ward, T. B. (2012). Cognition and the creation of ideas. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison
(Eds.), Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 456474). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation
task. Memory & Cognition, 21(6), 837845.
Spellman, B. A., & Holyoak, K. J. (1996). Pragmatics in analogical mapping. Cognitive Psychology, 31(3), 307346.
Spellman, B. A., & Schnall, S. (2009). Embodied rationality. Queens LJ, 35,117.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan:The impact of the highly improbable. NewYork:RandomHouse.
Thompson, L. L. (2011). Making the team: A guide for managers (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey:Pearson.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157),
11241131.
Twardy, C. (2010). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95116.
Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. R. (1981). On scientific thinking. New York: Columbia
UniversityPress.
van Gelder, T. (2001, December). How to improve critical thinking using educational technology. Paper presented
at the meeting at the crossroads:Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for
Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 539548). Melbourne:Biomedical Multimedia Unit,
The University of Melbourne.
van Gelder, T. (2003). Enhancing deliberation through computer supported argument visualization Visualizing
argumentation (pp. 97115):Springer.
van Gelder, T. (2005). Enhancing and augmenting human reasoning. Evolution, Rationality and
Cognition:ACognitive Science for the Twenty-First Century, 162181.
van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching,
53(1),4148.
van Gelder, T. and P. Monk (2016). Improving reasoning project. Retrieved March 4, 2016, from http://www.
vangeldermonk.com/improvingreasoning.html.
van Steenburgh, J. J., Fleck, J. I., Beeman, M., & Kounios, J. (2012). Insight. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 475491). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Van Waterschoot, W., & Van den Bulte, C. (1992). The 4P classification of the marketing mix revisited.
The Journal of Marketing,8393.
Vesely, W. E., Goldberg, F. F., Roberts, N. H., & Haasl, D. F. (1981). Fault tree handbook. Washington,
DC:Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Vlek, C., Prakken, H., Renooij, S., & Verheij, B. (2013, June). Modeling crime scenarios in a Bayesian network.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
and Law, ACM Press, NewYork, pp. 150159.

252 References
 253

von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (2007). Defining a decision analytic structure. In W. Edwards, R. F. Miles,
& D. von Winterfeldt (Eds.), Advances in decision analysis:From foundations to applications (pp. 81103).
NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Weisberg, R. W., & Alba, J. W. (1981). An examination of the alleged role of fixation in the solution of several
insight problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 110(2),169.
Wiebes, E., Baaij, M., Keibek, B., & Witteveen, P. (2007). The craft of strategy formation:Translating business
issues into actionable strategies. Southern Gate, UK:John Wiley &Sons.
Wojick, D. (1975). Issue analysisAn introduction to the use of issue trees and the nature of complex reasoning
Retrieved from http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf
Yates, J. F., Lee, J.-W., & Shinotsuka, H. (1996). Beliefs about overconfidence, including its cross-national varia-
tion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(2), 138147.

CHAPTER4

Anderson, T., Schum, D., & Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of evidence. NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Andr, P., Teevan, J., & Dumais, S. T. (2009, 2630 October). Discovery is never by chance:designing for (un)
serendipity. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Seventh Association of Computing Machinery
Conference on Creativity and Cognition. Berkeley,CA.
Arkes, H. R., & Kajdasz, J. (2011). Intuitive theories of behavior. In B. Fischhoff & C. Chauvin (Eds.),
Intelligence analysis: Behavioral and social scientific foundations (pp. 143168). Washington, DC: The
National AcademiesPress.
Ask, K., Rebelius, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). The elasticity of criminal evidence:a moderator of investiga-
tor bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(9), 12451259. doi:10.1002/acp.1432
Austhink. (2006). Argument Mapping Tutorials. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from http://austhink.com/
reason/tutorials/
Barends, E., ten Have, S., & Huisman, F. (2012). Learning from other evidence-based practices:the case of
medicine. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 2542).
NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Bastardi, A., & Shafir, E. (1998). On the pursuit and misuse of useless information. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75(1),19.
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley &
Sons.
Bex, F., & Verheij, B. (2012). Solving a murder case by asking critical questions:An approach to fact-finding in
terms of argumentation and story schemes. Argumentation, 26(3), 325353.
Beyth-Marom, R., & Fischhoff, B. (1983). Diagnosticity and pseudodiagnosticity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 45(6),1185.
Blumer, A., Ehrenfeucht, A., Haussler, D., & Warmuth, M. K. (1987). Occams razor. Information Processing
Letters, 24(6), 377380.
Boicu, M., Tecuci, G., & Schum, D. (2008, 34 December). Intelligence Analysis Ontology for Cognitive
Assistants. Proceedings of the Conference Ontology for the Intelligence Community. Fairfax,VA.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y., & Simester, D. (2011). Goodbye pareto principle, hello long tail:The effect of search
costs on the concentration of product sales. Management Science, 57(8), 13731386.
Cannon, W. B. (1940). The role of chance in discovery. The Scientific Monthly, 50, 204209.
Chamberlin, T. C. (1965). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science, 148(3671), 754759.

253
References
254

Church, B. K. (1991). An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors evalua-
tions of confirming and disconfirming evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 7(2), 513534.
Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers. Washington, DC:Center for Problem
Oriented Policing.
Cornell University Law School. Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence. Retrieved April 7, 2014, from http://
www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401
Cousins, R. D. (1995). Why isnt every physicist a Bayesian? American Journal of Physics, 63(5), 398410.
Cowan, N. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory:Areconsideration of mental storage capacity.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(1), 87114.
Cowley, M., & Byrne, R. M. (2004, February). Chess masters hypothesis testing. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah,NJ.
Cowley, M., & Byrne, R. M. (2005, February). When falsification is the only path to truth. Paper presented at the
27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Stresa,Italy.
Davis, R. H. (2006). Strong inference: rationale or inspiration? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 49(2),
238250.
Dawson, E., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (2002). Motivated Reasoning and Performance on the Wason Selection
Task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 13791387.
Dawson, N. V., Connors, A. F., Speroff, T., Kemka, A., Shaw, P., & Arkes, H. R. (1993). Hemodynamic assessment
in managing the critically ill:Is physician confidence warranted? Medical Decision Making, 13(3), 258266.
Doherty, M. E., Mynatt, C. R., Tweney, R. D., & Schiavo, M. D. (1979). Pseudodiagnosticity. Acta Psychologica,
43(2), 111121.
Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701718). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Dunbar, M. (1980). The blunting of Occams Razor, or to hell with parsimony. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
58(2), 123128.
Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71(1),5.
Fenton, N., & Neil, M. (2010). Comparing risks of alternative medical diagnosis using Bayesian arguments.
Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(4), 485495.
Fenton, N., Neil, M., & Lagnado, D. A. (2012). A general structure for legal arguments about evidence using
Bayesian networks. Cognitive Science, 37(1), 61102.
Fine, G. A., & Deegan, J. G. (1996). Three principles of Serendip:insight, chance, and discovery in qualitative
research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9(4), 434447.
Fischhoff, B., & Chauvin, C. (2011). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Fisk, C. E. (1972). The Sino-Soviet border dispute:Acomparison of the conventional and Bayesian methods
for intelligence warning. Studies in Intelligence, 16(2),5362.
Gabbay, D., & Woods, J. (2006). Advice on abductive logic. Logic Journal of IGPL, 14(2), 189219.
Gauch, H. G. (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Gawande, A. (2011, January 24). The hot spotters. The NewYorker.
Gawande, A. (2015, May 11). Overkill:An avalanche of unnecessary medical care is harming patients physi-
cally and financially. What can we do about it? The NewYorker.
George, R. Z., & Bruce, J. B. (2008). Analyzing intelligence: Origins, obstacles, and innovations. Washington,
DC:Georgetown UniversityPress.
Giluk, T. L., & Rynes-Weller, S. (2012). Research findings practitioners resist:Lessons for management aca-
demics from evidence-based medicine. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based
management (pp. 130164). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.

254 References
 255

Gorman, M. E., & Gorman, M. E. (1984). A comparison of disconfirmatory, confirmatory and control strate-
gies on Wasons 246 task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36(4), 629648.
Gorman, M. E., Gorman, M. E., Latta, R. M., & Cunningham, G. (1984). How disconfirmatory, confirmatory
and combined strategies affect group problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 75(1),6579.
Gustafson, D. H., Edwards, W., Phillips, L. D., & Slack, W. V. (1969). Subjective probabilities in medical diag-
nosis. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 10(3),6165.
Hepler, A. B., Dawid, A. P., & Leucari, V. (2007). Object-oriented graphical representations of complex patterns
of evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(14), 275293.
Heuer, R. J. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis: Center for the Study of Intelligence. Washington,
DC:Central Intelligence Agency.
Heuer, R. J., & Pherson, R. H. (2011). Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. Washington,
DC:CQPress.
Hill, A. B. (1965). The environment and disease:association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Medicine, 58(5),295.
Hoffman, R. R., Shadbolt, N. R., Burton, A. M., & Klein, G. (1995). Eliciting knowledge from experts:Ameth-
odological analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 129158.
Juran, J. M. (1975). The non-Pareto principle; mea culpa. Quality Progress, 8(5),89.
Kakas, A. C., Kowalski, R. A., & Toni, F. (1992). Abductive logic programming. Journal of Logic and Computation,
2(6), 719770.
Kell, D. B., & Oliver, S. G. (2004). Here is the evidence, now what is the hypothesis? The complementary
roles of inductive and hypothesis-driven science in the post-genomic era. Bioessays, 26(1), 99105.
doi:10.1002/bies.10385
Kent, S. (1964). Words of estimative probability. Studies in Intelligence, 8(4),4965.
King, R. D. (2010). Rise of the robo scientists. Scientific American, 304(1),7277.
Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation:Adevelopmental study.
Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 111146.
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing.
Psychological Review, 94(2),211.
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-w. (1989). Hypothesis testing in rule discovery:Strategy, structure, and content. Journal
of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(4),596.
Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental
Psychology:Human Learning and Memory, 6(2),107.
Lemann, N. (2015, October 12). The network manReid Hoffmans big idea. The NewYorker.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization:the effects of prior
theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11),2098.
Macpherson, R., & Stanovich, K. E. (2007). Cognitive ability, thinking dispositions, and instructional set as
predictors of critical thinking. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 115127.
Mahoney, M. J., & DeMonbreun, B. G. (1977). Psychology of the scientist:An analysis of problem-solving bias.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(3), 229238.
Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. R. (2012). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology (3rd ed.). Belmont,
CA:Wadsworth.
McIntyre, M. E. (1998). Lucidity and science III:Hypercredulity, quantum mechanics, and scientific truth.
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 23(1),2970.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two:some limits on our capacity for processing
information. Psychological Review, 63(2),81.
Mitchell, M. L., & Jolley, J. M. (2009). Research design explained. Belmond, CA:Wadsworth.

255
References
256

Mynatt, C. R., Doherty, M. E., & Tweney, R. D. (1978). Consequences of confirmation and disconfir-
mation in a simulated research environment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30(3),
395406.
National Research Council. (2010). Field evaluation in the intelligence and counterintelligence context:Workshop
summary. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
National Research Council. (2011a). Intelligence analysis for tomorrow:Advances from the behavioral and social
sciences. Washington DC:National AcademiesPress.
National Research Council. (2011b). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Ness, R. (2013). Genius unmasked. NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Ness, R. B. (2012a). Innovation generation:How to produce creative and useful scientific ideas. NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Ness, R. B. (2012b). Tools for innovative thinking in epidemiology. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(8),
733738.
Neustadt, R. E., & May, E. R. (1986). Thinking in time:The uses of history for decision makers. NewYork:Simon &
Schuster.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General
Psychology, 2(2),175.
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect:Nondiagnostic information weakens the
implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 248277.
Oliver, R., Bjoertomt, O., Greenwood, R., & Rothwell, J. (2008). Noisy patientscan signal detection theory
help? Nature Clinical Practice Neurology, 4(6), 306316.
Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686.
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., & Belitz, K. (1994). Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical
models in the earth sciences. Science, 263(5147), 641646.
Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(3),261.
Page, S. E. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies.
Princeton, NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.
Pardo, M. S., & Allen, R. J. (2008). Juridical proof and the best explanation. Law and Philosophy, 27(3), 223268.
Patel, V. L., Arocha, J. F., & Zhang, J. (2012). Medical reasoning and thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 736754). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense:Profiting from evidence-
based management. Boston, MA:Harvard BusinessPress.
Philips, B., Ball, C., Sackett, D. L., Badenoch, D., Straus, S. E., Haynes, R. B., & Dawes, R. M. (March 2008).
Levels of evidence. Retrieved January 20,2015.
Phillips, L. D., & Edwards, W. (1966). Conservatism in a simple probability inference task. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 72(3),346.
Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146(3642), 347353.
Pope, S., & Josang, A. (2005). Analysis of competing hypotheses using subjective logic:CRC for Enterprise
Distributed Technology.
Pople, H. E. (1973). On the mechanization of abductive logic. Paper presented at theIJCAI.
Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London:Routledge.
Prakken, H. (2014). On direct and indirect probabilistic reasoning in legal proof. Law, Probability and Risk,
mgu013.
Puga, J. L., Krzywinski, M., & Altman, N. (2015). Points of Significance: Bayes theorem. Nature Methods,
12(4), 277278.

256 References
 257

Reichenbach, H. (1973). The rise of scientific philosophy. Berkeley, CA:University of CaliforniaPress.

Ringle, K. (1990, May 6). When more is less. WashingtonPost.
Rosenberg, W., & Donald, A. (1995). Evidence based medicine: an approach to clinical problem-solving.
BMJ:British Medical Journal, 310(6987),1122.
Rowe, G., & Reed, C. (2010). Argument diagramming: the Araucaria project. In Knowledge Cartography
(pp. 163181). London:Springer.
Rowley, J. E. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information
Science, 33(2), 163180.
Russell, S. J., Norvig, P., Canny, J. F., Malik, J. M., & Edwards, D. D. (1995). Artificial intelligence:a modern
approach (Vol. 2). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:PrenticeHall.
Schauer, F. (2009). Thinking like a lawyer: a new introduction to legal reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Schoemaker, P. J. (1995). Scenario planning:a tool for strategic thinking. Sloan Management Review, 36,25.
Schum, D., Tecuci, G., Boicu, M., & Marcu, D. (2009). Substance-blind classification of evidence for intel-
ligence analysis. In Proceedings of the Conference Ontology for the Intelligence Community: Setting
the Stage for High-level Knowledge Fusion, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia Campus, 2022
October 2009.
Schum, D. A. (1994). The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
UniversityPress.
Schum, D. A. (2009). A science of evidence:contributions from law and probability. Law, Probability and Risk,
8(3), 197231.
Schum, D. A., & Morris, J. R. (2007). Assessing the competence and credibility of human sources of intelli-
gence evidence:contributions from law and probability. Law, Probability and Risk, 6(14), 247274.
Schunemann, H. J., Jaeschke, R., Cook, D. J., Bria, W. F., El-Solh, A. A., Ernst, A., Krishnan, J. A. (2006). An
official ATS statement:grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines
and recommendations. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 174(5), 605614.
Shekelle, P. G., Woolf, S. H., Eccles, M., & Grimshaw, J. (1999). Clinical guidelines: developing guidelines.
BMJ:British Medical Journal, 318(7183),593.
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36(11),1202.
Son, L. K., & Kornell, N. (2010). The virtues of ignorance. Behavioural Processes, 83(2), 207212.
Spellman, B. A. (2011). Individual reasoning. In C. Chauvin & B. Fischhoff (Eds.), Intelligence analy-
sis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. NewYork:RandomHouse.
Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan:The impact of the highly improbable. NewYork:RandomHouse.
Tecuci, G., Schum, D., Boicu, M., Marcu, D., & Russell, K. (2011). Toward a computational theory of evidence-
based reasoning. 18th International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science, University
Politehnica of Bucharest. May 2427.
Tecuci, G., Schum, D. A., Marcu, D., & Boicu, M. (2014). Computational approach and cognitive assistant
for evidencebased reasoning in intelligence analysis. International Journal of Intelligent Defence Support
Systems, 5(2), 146172.
Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind:Statistics, struc-
ture, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022), 12791285.
Thagard, P. (1989). Explanatory coherence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(3), 435502.
Thagard, P. (2005). Testimony, credibility, and explanatory coherence. Erkenntnis, 63(3), 295316.
Thagard, P. R. (1978). The best explanation:Criteria for theory choice. The Journal of Philosophy,7692.

257
References
258

Thompson, M. A., Mugavero, M. J., Amico, K. R., Cargill, V. A., Chang, L. W., Gross, R., Bartlett, J. G. (2012).
Guidelines for improving entry into and retention in care and antiretroviral adherence for persons with
HIV: evidence-based recommendations from an International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care
panel. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(11), 817833.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability:Aheuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive
Psychology, 5(2), 207232.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157),
11241131.
Twardy, C. (2010). Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teaching Philosophy, 27(2), 95116.
Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Kleiter, G. D. (2010). The pseudodiagnosticity trap: Should participants
consider alternative hypotheses? Thinking & Reasoning, 16(4), 332345.
Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., & Mynatt, C. R. (1981). On scientific thinking. New York: Columbia
UniversityPress.
Tweney, R. D., Doherty, M. E., Worner, W. J., Pliske, D. B., Mynatt, C. R., Gross, K. A., & Arkkelin, D. L. (1980).
Strategies of rule discovery in an inference task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1),
109123.
U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (2008). Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II
Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence.
Vale, N. B.d., Delfino, J., & Vale, L. F.B.d. (2005). Serendipity in medicine and anesthesiology. Revista Brasileira
de Anestesiologia, 55(2), 224249.
Van Andel, P. (1994). Anatomy of the unsought finding. Serendipity:Origin, history, domains, traditions, ap-
pearances, patterns and programmability. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45(2), 631648.
van Gelder, T. (2005). Teaching critical thinking: Some lessons from cognitive science. College Teaching,
53(1),4148.
van Gelder, T. (2008). Can we do better than ACH? AIPIO News(55).
Vlek, C., Prakken, H., Renooij, S., & Verheij, B. (2013, June). Modeling crime scenarios in a Bayesian network.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence
and Law, ACM Press, NewYork, pp. 150159.
von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 12(3), 129140.
Welch, H. G. (2015). Less medicine more health: 7 assumptions that drive too much medical care. Boston,
MA:BeaconPress.
Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20(1), 99149.
doi:10.1006/drev.1999.0497
Zlotnick, J. (1972). Bayes theorem for intelligence analysis. Studies in Intelligence, 16(2),4352.

CHAPTER5

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design:Predictors of new product team perfor-
mance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321341.
Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1986). Training effects on attitudes toward divergent thinking
among manufacturing engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4),612.
Bassok, M., & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413432). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups research: What we have learned and what needs to be
addressed. Journal of Management, 17(2), 345381.

258 References
 259

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6),84.

Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective:Recommendations from an
associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 208212.
Clapham, M. M. (2003). The development of innovative ideas through creativity training. In L. V. Shavinina
(Ed.), The International Handbook on Innovation, pp. 366376. Oxford, UK:Elsevier.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts.
Management Science, 9(3), 458467.
De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking:Creativity step by step. NewYork:Harper Perennial.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups:Toward the solution of a riddle.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3),497.
Duncker, K., & Lees, L. S. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs,58(5).
Dugosh, K. L., et al. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79(5), 722.
Eesley, C. E., Hsu, D. H., & Roberts, E. B. (2014). The contingent effects of top management teams on venture
performance:Aligning founding team composition with innovation strategy and commercialization envi-
ronment. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 17981817.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition:Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge,
MA:MITPress.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes:Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.).
NewYork:Penguin.
Geschka, H., Schaude, G. R., & Schlicksupp, H. (1976). Modern techniques for solving problems. International
Studies of Management & Organization, 6,4563.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 306355.
Ginnett, R. C. (2010). Crews as groups:Their formation and their leadership. In B. G. Kanki, R. L. Helmreich, &
J. Anca (Eds.), Crew resource management (pp. 79110). San Diego, CA:Elsevier.
Goodman, C. M. (1987). The Delphi technique:a critique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 12(6), 729734.
Gray, J. (2013). Henri Poincar:Ascientific biography. Princeton, NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4),267.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). The hidden traps in decision making. Harvard Business
Review, 76(5),4758.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (2002). Smart choices:Apractical guide to making better decisions.
NewYork:RandomHouse.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716749.
Heslin, P. A. (2009). Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for
idea generation in organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 129145.
Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homoge-
neous and heterogeneous groups. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(2),401.
Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and relational reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 234259). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2001). Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. Journal of Economic Theory, 97(1),
123163.
Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability
problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(46),
1638516389.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference:Afield study of diver-
sity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741763.

259
References
260

Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search.
Organization Science, 21(5), 10161033.
Jones, M. D. (1998). The thinkers toolkit:14 powerful techniques for problem solving. NewYork:Three RiversPress.
Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome:Alook at the perfor-
mance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. R & D Management, 12(1),720.
Kaur, R., Kumar, P., & Singh, R. P. (2014). A journey of digital storage from punch cards to cloud. IOSR Journal
of Engineering, 4(3),3641.
Kavadias, S., & Sommer, S. C. (2009). The effects of problem structure and team diversity on brainstorming
effectiveness. Management Science, 55(12), 18991913.
Kelley, T. (2001). The art of innovation: lessons in creativity from IDEO, Americas leading design firm.
NewYork:RandomHouse.
Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation:Effects of others ideas on brainstorming. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359371.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, &
R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333
375). NewYork:John Wiley &Sons.
Lehrer, J. (2012). Groupthink:The brainstorming myth. The NewYorker, 30,12.
Linsey, J. S., Clauss, E., Kurtoglu, T., Murphy, J., Wood, K., & Markman, A. (2011). An experimental study of
group idea generation techniques:understanding the roles of idea representation and viewing methods.
Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(3), 031008.
Loewenstein, J. (2012). Thinking in business. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford handbook
of thinking and reasoning (pp. 755773). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Madson, P. R. (2005). Improv wisdom:Dont prepare, just show up. NewYork:BellTower.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse
teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2),3155.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions:Theory, cases, and techniques.
NewYork:John Wiley &Sons.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 19972007:Areview of recent
advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410476.
McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group
Research, 27(2), 248264.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups:Ameta-analytic integra-
tion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1),323.
Mullen, P. M. (2003). Delphi:myths and reality. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17(1),3752.
National Research Council. (2011a). Intelligence analysis for tomorrow:Advances from the behavioral and social
sciences. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
National Research Council. (2011b). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
National Research Council. (2014). Convergence:Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical
sciences, engineering, and beyond. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
Nemeth, C. J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group
creativity:Astudy in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 365374.
Ness, R. (2013). Genius Unmasked. NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Ness, R. B. (2012). Innovation generation:How to produce creative and useful scientific ideas. NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Orlando, A. (2015, February 4). The other guys toolkit. Texas Medical CenterNews.

260 References
 261

Osborn, A. F. (1948). Your creative power. NewYork:Charles ScribnersSons.

Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imaginationPrinciples and procedures of creative writing. New York: Charles
ScribnersSons.
Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brain-
storming groups. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11(4),633.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies.
Princeton, NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.
Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organi-
zational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(12), 249265.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1),7687.
Poincar, H. (1908). Linvention mathmatique. Revue gnrale des Sciences, 19, 521526.
Posner, M. I. (1973). Cognition:An introduction. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman and Company.
Prime Ministers Strategy Unit. (2004). Strategy survival guide. Cabinet Office, Admiralty Arch, The Mall,
London,UK.
Rider, Y., & Thomason, N. (2010). Cognitive and pedagogical benefits of argument mapping:LAMP guides
the way to better thinking. In A. Okada, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartog-
raphy:Software tools and mapping techniques (pp. 113130). London:Springer.
Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2001). Expert opinions in forecasting:the role of the Delphi technique. In Armstrong,
J. S. (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practioners (pp. 125144). Boston,
MA:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training:Aquantitative review.
Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361388.
Seelig, T. (2009). What I wish I knew when I was 20: A crash course on making your place in the world.
NewYork:HarperCollins.
Shah, J. J., Smith, S. M., & Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design
Studies, 24(2), 111134.
Smith, S. M., & Ward, T. B. (2012). Cognition and the creation of ideas. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 456474). NewYork:Oxford.
Snyder, A., Mitchell, J., Ellwood, S., Yates, A., & Pallier, G. (2004). Nonconscious idea generation. Psychological
Reports, 94(3c), 13251330.
Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context:Effectiveness in a product design firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685718.
Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. The Academy of Management
Executive, 17(1), 96109.
Thompson, L. L. (2011). Making the Team:AGuide for Managers (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.
Thompson, L. L. (2012). The mind and heart of the negotiator (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ:PrenticeHall.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research:Lessons from
the evaluation of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2), 105115.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of
Sociology, 111(2), 447504.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group deci-
sion making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 605621.
VanGundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of structured problem solving. NewYork:Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Verberne, T. (1997, August 1). Creative Fitness. Training & Development, 51(8),6971.

261
References
262

Vroom, V. H., Grant, L. D., & Cotton, T. S. (1969). The consequences of social interaction in group problem
solving. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(1),7795.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversitys impact on interaction process and perfor-
mance:Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 590602.
Welch, H. G. (2015). Less medicine more health: 7 assumptions that drive too much medical care. Boston,
MA:BeaconPress.
Williams, K. Y., & OReilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations:Areview of 40years of
research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77140.

CHAPTER6

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254285.

Anderson, C. (2004). The long tail. Wired, 12(10), 170177.
Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International
Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207216.
Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2006). The heat of the moment:The effect of sexual arousal on sexual decision
making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2),8798.
Arkes, H. R., & Kajdasz, J. (2011). Intuitive theories of behavior. In B. Fischhoff & C. Chauvin (Eds.),
Intelligence analysis: Behavioral and social scientific foundations (pp. 143168). Washington, DC: The
National AcademiesPress.
Armstrong, J. S. (2001). Combining forecasts. In Armstrong, J. S. (Ed.), Principles of forecasting:Ahandbook for
researchers and practioners (pp. 417439). Boston, MA:Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Axelsson, R. (1998). Towards an evidence-based health care management. The International Journal of Health
Planning and Management, 13(4), 307317.
Barends, E., ten Have, S., & Huisman, F. (2012). Learning from other evidence-based practices:the case of
medicine. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 2542).
NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley
&Sons.
Becklen, R., & Cervone, D. (1983). Selective looking and the noticing of unexpected events. Memory &
Cognition, 11(6), 601608.
Blair, C. (1996). Hitlers U-boat war:The hunters 19391942 (Vol. 1). NewYork:Modern Library.
Cottrell, S. (2011). Critical thinking skills: Developing effective analysis and argument (2nd ed.). London,
UK:Palgrave Macmillan.
Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist,
34(7),571.
Dawes, R. M., & Corrigan, B. (1974). Linear models in decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 81(2),95.
Denrell, J. (2003). Vicarious learning, undersampling of failure, and the myths of management. Organization
Science, 14(3), 227243.
Edwards, W. (1977). How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. Systems, Man
and Cybernetics, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
7(5), 326340.
Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER:Improved simple methods for multiattribute
utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(3), 306325.
Eisenfhr, F., Weber, M., & Langer, T. (2010). Rational decision making. Heidelberg, Germany:Springer.
Gauch, H. G. (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge UniversityPress.

262 References
 263

Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (2009). Decision analysis for management judgment (4th ed.). Chichester, UK:John
Wiley &Sons.
Grimes, D. A., & Schulz, K. F. (2002). An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. The Lancet,
359(9300),5761.
Institute of Medicine. (2014). Evaluation design for complex global initiatives:Workshop summary. Washington,
DC:The National AcademiesPress.
Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8),e124.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Cambridge, UK:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Keeney, R. L. (1982). Decision analysis:an overview. Operations Research, 30(5), 803838.
Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
UniversityPress.
Keeney, R. L. (2007). Developing objectives and attributes. In W. Edwards, R. F. Miles, & D. von Winterfeldt
(Eds.), Advances in decision analysis:From foundations to applications (pp. 104128). NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives:preferences and value trade-offs, Cambridge,
UK:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Leebron, D. (2015). SAILS framework. Personal communication.
Lord, L. K., Wittum, T. E., Ferketich, A. K., Funk, J. A., & Rajala-Schultz, P. J. (2007). Search and identification
methods that owners use to find a lost dog. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 230(2),
211216.
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions:Introduction and critical survey. NewYork:Dover.
Makridakis, S., & Gaba, A. (1998). Judgment:its role and value for strategy. In G. Wight and P. Goodwin (Eds.),
Forecasting with judgment. Chichester, UK. John Wiley &Sons.
Medawar, P. B. (1979). Advice to a young scientist. NewYork:BasicBooks.
National Research Council. (2011). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Olson, D. L. (1996). Decision aids for selection problems. NewYork:Springer.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science,
349(6251), aac4716.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006a). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1),62.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006b). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense:Profiting from evidence-
based management. Boston, MA:Harvard BusinessPress.
Pratkanis, A. R., & Farquhar, P. H. (1992). A brief history of research on phantom alternatives:Evidence for
seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13(1), 103122.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as evidence-based management? Academy of Management
Review, 31(2), 256269.
Rousseau, D. M. (2012). Organizational behaviors contributions to evidence-based management. In D. M.
Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 6178). New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Schum, D. A. (1994). The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
UniversityPress.
Schnemann, H. J., Jaeschke, R., Cook, D. J., Bria, W. F., El-Solh, A. A., Ernst, A., Krishnan, J. A. (2006). An
official ATS statement:grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines
and recommendations. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 174(5), 605614.

263
References
264

Schnemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Brozek, J., Glasziou, P., Jaeschke, R., Vist, G. E., Montori, V. M. (2008).
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ,
336(7653), 11061110.
Sherman, L. W. (2002). Evidence-based policing: Social organization of information for social control.
In E. Waring & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and social organization (pp. 217248). New Brunswick,
NJ:Transaction Publishers.
Simons, D. J. (2000). Attentional capture and inattentional blindness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4),
147155.
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst:Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic
events. PerceptionLondon, 28(9), 10591074.
Simonsohn, U. (2007). Clouds make nerds look good:Field evidence of the impact of incidental factors on
decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(2), 143152.
Thompson, J. M.T. (2013). Advice to a young researcher:with reminiscences of a life in science. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A:Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1993),
20120425.
Tsuruda, K., & Hayashi, K. (1975). Direction finding technique for elliptically polarized VLF electro-magnetic
waves and its application to the low-latitude whistlers. Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, 37(9),
11931202.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157),
11241131.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (1989). Guide to clinical preventive services. Baltimore, MD:Williams and
Wilkins.
Van Buren, M. E., & Safferstone, T. (2009). The quick wins paradox. Harvard Business Review, 87(1),5561.
van Gelder, T. (2010). Elements of a major business decision. Retrieved June 8, 2015 from http://timvan-
gelder.com/2010/12/09/elements-of-a-major-business-decision/
von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Watkins, M. (2004). Strategy for the critical first 90days of leadership. Strategy & Leadership, 32(1),1520.
Weick, K. E. (1984). Small wins:Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist, 39(1),40.
Weiss, E., Slater, M., & Lord, L. (2012). Frequency of lost dogs and cats in the United States and the methods
used to locate them. Animals, 2(2), 301315.

CHAPTER7

Abela, A. (2008). Advanced presentations by design:Creating communication that drives action:San Francisco,
CA:Pfeiffer.
Allen, M. (1991). Metaanalysis comparing the persuasiveness of onesided and twosided messages. Western
Journal of Speech Communication, 55(4), 390404.
Alley, M. (2003). The craft of scientific presentations. NewYork:Springer.
Alley, M. (2013). The craft of scientific presentations (2nd ed.). NewYork:Springer.
Alley, M., & Neeley, K. A. (2005). Rethinking the design of presentation slides:Acase for sentence headlines
and visual evidence. Technical Communication, 52(4), 417426.
Alley, M., Schreiber, M., Ramsdell, K., & Muffo, J. (2006). How the design of headlines in presentation slides
affects audience retention. Technical Communication, 53(2), 225234.
Arkes, H. R., & Kajdasz, J. (2011). Intuitive theories of behavior. In B. Fischhoff & C. Chauvin (Eds.),
Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations (pp. 143168). Washington, DC:National
AcademiesPress.

264 References
 265

Arpan, L. M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2005). Stealing thunder:Analysis of the effects of proactive disclo-
sure of crisis information. Public Relations Review, 31(3), 425433.
Artz, N., & Tybout, A. M. (1999). The moderating impact of quantitative information on the relationship be-
tween source credibility and persuasion:Apersuasion knowledge model interpretation. Marketing Letters,
10(1),5163.
Barry, D., & Elmes, M. (1997). Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse. Academy of
Management Review, 22(2), 429452.
Bartsch, R. A., & Cobern, K. M. (2003). Effectiveness of PowerPoint presentations in lectures. Computers &
Education, 41(1),7786.
Bartunek, J. M. (2007). Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research:Toward
a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 13231333.
Bergen, L., Grimes, T., & Potter, D. (2005). How attention partitions itself during simultaneous message pre-
sentations. Human Communication Research, 31(3), 311336.
Berk, R. A. (2011). Research on PowerPoint: From basic features to multimedia. International Journal of
Technology in Teaching and Learning, 7(1),2435.
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., & Williams, J. M. (2003). The craft of research: Chicago, IL: University of
ChicagoPress.
Brooks, A. W., Huang, L., Kearney, S. W., & Murray, F. E. (2014). Investors prefer entrepreneurial ventures
pitched by attractive men. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(12), 44274431.
Bumiller, E. (2010, April 26). We have met the enemy and he is PowerPoint. The NewYorkTimes.
Burke, W. W. (2014). Organization change:Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Butcher, K. R. (2014). The multimedia principle. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia
learning (2nd ed., pp. 174205). NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Castka, P., Bamber, C., Sharp, J., & Belohoubek, P. (2001). Factors affecting successful implementation of high
performance teams. Team Performance Management, 7(7/8), 123134.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001a). Harnessing the science of persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 79(9),7281.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001b). Influence:Science and practice (Vol. 4). Boston, MA:Allyn andBacon.
Collins, J. (2004). Giving a PowerPoint presentation: The art of communicating effectively. Education
Techniques for Lifelong Learning. Radiographics, 24(4), 11851192.
Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. (2010). What types of advice do decision-makers prefer? Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 112(1),1123.
Davis, I., Keeling, D., Schreier, P., & Williams, A. (2007). The McKinsey approach to problem solving. McKinsey
Staff Paper (66),27.
Denning, S. (2006). Effective storytelling: strategic business narrative techniques. Strategy & Leadership,
34(1),4248.
Dionne, E. (2014, December 7). In politics, does evidence matter? The WashingtonPost.
Doumont, J.-L. (2005). The cognitive style of PowerPoint:Slides are not all evil. Technical Communication,
52(1),6470.
Doumont, J.-L. (2009). Trees, maps, and theorems: effective communication for rational minds. Kraainem,
Belgium:Principiae.
Duarte, N. (2008). Slide ology:the art and science of creating great presentations. Toronto:OReillyMedia.
Duarte, N. (2010). Resonate:Present visual stories that transform audiences. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley &Sons.
Dunbar, K. N., & Klahr, D. (2012). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.),
The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 701718). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but :Ameta-
analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1),109.

265
References
266

Fischer, M. H. (2000). Do irrelevant depth cues affect the comprehension of bar graphs? Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 14(2), 151162.
Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should Igive and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor
exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 539553.
Forsyth, R., & Waller, A. (1995). Making your point:principles of visual design for computer aided slide and
poster production. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 72(1),80.
Gardner, H. (2006). Changing minds:The art and science of changing our own and other peoples minds. Boston,
MA:Harvard BusinessPress.
Garner, J., & Alley, M. (2013). How the design of presentation slides affects audience comprehension:Acase
for the assertionevidence approach. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(6), 15641579.
Garner, J. K., Alley, M., Wolfe, K. L., & Zappe, S. (2011). Assertionevidence slides appear to lead to better compre-
hension and recall of more complex concepts. Paper presented at the 118th American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference, Vancouver,BC.
Gelula, M. H. (1997). Effective lecture presentation skills. Surgical Neurology, 47(2), 201204.
Giluk, T. L., & Rynes-Weller, S. (2012). Research findings practitioners resist:Lessons for management aca-
demics from evidence-based medicine. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based
management (pp. 130164). NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Gino, F. (2008). Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 234245.
Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (2009). Decision analysis for management judgment (4th ed.). Chichester, UK:John
Wiley &Sons.
Hoadley, E. (1990). Investigating the effects of color. Communications of the Association for Computing
Machinery, 33(2), 120125.
Holley, P. (2014, December 10). The Australian researcher who says his governments shark policy bites be-
cause its based on Jaws. The WashingtonPost.
Hoy, W. K., & Smith, P. A. (2007). Influence:a key to successful leadership. International Journal of Educational
Management, 21(2), 158167.
Jamet, E., & Le Bohec, O. (2007). The effect of redundant text in multimedia instruction. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 32(4), 588598.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Dickson, G. W. (1988). Graphics and managerial decision making:Research-based guide-
lines. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 31(6), 764774.
Juice Analytics. Chart Chooser. Retrieved from http://labs.juiceanalytics.com/chartchooser/index.html. On
June 1,2014.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia
instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1),126.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2004). When redundant on-screen text in multimedia technical instruc-
tion can interfere with learning. Human Factors:The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
46(3), 567581.
Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2014). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.),
The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 247262). New York: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Kawasaki, G. (2004). The art of the start: The time-tested, battle-hardened guide for anyone starting anything.
NewYork:Penguin.
Kawasaki, G. (2008). Reality check:The irreverent guide to outsmarting, outmanaging, and outmarketing your com-
petition. NewYork:Penguin.
Keisler, J. M., & Noonan, P. S. (2012). Communicating analytic results:Atutorial for decision consultants.
Decision Analysis, 9(3), 274292.

266 References
 267

Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses:Free-rider
effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1),78.
Konnikova, M. (2014, January 21). The six things that make stories go viral will amaze, and maybe infuriate,
you. The NewYorker.
Koomey, J. (2008). Turning numbers into knowledge: mastering the art of problem solving. Oakland,
CA:AnalyticsPress.
Kosara, R., & Mackinlay, J. (2013). Storytelling:The next step for visualization. Computer (5),4450.
Kosslyn, S. M. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 185225.
Kosslyn, S. M. (2007). Clear and to the point:8 psychological principles for compelling PowerPoint presentations.
NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths
of beauty? Ameta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3),390.
Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J. (2010). Universal principles of design:125 ways to enhance usability, influence
perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design. Gloucester, MA:Rockport
Publishers.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship:Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of
resources. Strategic Management Journal, 22(67), 545564.
Lussier, R., & Achua, C. (2007). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development (3rd ed.). Mason,
OH:Thomson South-Western.
Mackendrick, A. (2004). On film-making: An introduction to the craft of the director. New York: Faber and
Faber,Inc.
Mackiewicz, J. (2007a). Audience perceptions of fonts in projected PowerPoint text slides. Technical
Communication, 54(3), 295307.
Mackiewicz, J. (2007b). Perceptions of clarity and attractiveness in PowerPoint graph slides. Technical
Communication, 54(2), 145156.
Markel, M. (2009). Exploiting verbal-visual synergy in presentation slides. Technical Communication, 56(2),
122131.
Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, P. D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need?
The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5),
11071132.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Introduction to multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of
multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 124). NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learn-
ing:Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer
(Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279315). New York: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning:When presenting
more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1),187.
Mayer, R. E., & Pilegard, C. (2014). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning:seg-
menting, pre-training, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multime-
dia learning (2nd ed., pp. 316344). NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement.
Communications Monographs, 66(1), 90103.
McIntyre, M. E. (1997). Lucidity and Science I: Writing skills and the pattern perception hypothesis.
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 22(3), 199216.
McKee, R., & Fryer, B. (2003). Storytelling that moves people. Harvard Business Review, 81(6),5155.

267
References
268

Menzel, K. E., & Carrell, L. J. (1994). The relationship between preparation and performance in public speak-
ing. Communication Education, 43(1),1726.
Mindich, D. T.Z. (1998). Just the facts:How objectivity came to define American journalism. NewYork:NewYork
UniversityPress.
Minto, B. (2009). The pyramid principle:logic in writing and thinking. Harlow, UK:Pearson Education.
Mobius, M. M., & Rosenblat, T. S. (2006). Why beauty matters. The American Economic Review, 96(1),
222235.
National Research Council. (2011). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General
Psychology, 2(2),175.
Nisbett, R. E., Zukier, H., & Lemley, R. E. (1981). The dilution effect:Nondiagnostic information weakens the
implications of diagnostic information. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 248277.
Orwell, G. (1970). Politics and the English language (Vol. 4). NewYork:Harcourt, Brace, Javanovich.
Parks, C. D., & Komorita, S. S. (1998). Reciprocity research and its implications for the negotiation process.
International Negotiation, 3(2), 151169.
Pechmann, C. (1992). Predicting when two-sided ads will be more effective than one-sided ads:The role of
correlational and correspondent inferences. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(November), 441453.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and qual-
ity:Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1),69.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense:Profiting from evidence-
based management. Boston, MA:Harvard BusinessPress.
Reynolds, G. (2011). Presentation Zen: Simple ideas on presentation design and delivery. Berkeley, CA: New
Riders.
Roche, S. M. (1979). The thought process in McKinsey reports and presentations.
Schum, D. A. (1994). The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. Evanston, IL: Northwestern
UniversityPress.
Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J. (2002). Review of graph comprehension research: Implications for instruction.
Educational Psychology Review, 14(1),4769.
Shaw, G., Brown, R., & Bromiley, P. (1998). Strategic stories:How 3M is rewriting business planning. Harvard
Business Review, 76(3), 4142, 44,4650.
Sherman, L. W. (2002). Evidence-based policing: Social organization of information for social control.
In E. Waring & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and social organization (pp. 217248). New Brunswick,
NJ:Transaction Publishers.
Smith, T. E., & Frymier, A. B. (2006). Get real:Does practicing speeches before an audience improve perfor-
mance? Communication Quarterly, 54(1), 111125.
Spence, I., & Lewandowsky, S. (1991). Displaying proportions and percentages. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
5(1),6177.
Strunk, W. (2015). The elements of style. Grammar,Inc.
Thompson, J. M.T. (2013). Advice to a young researcher:with reminiscences of a life in science. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A:Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1993),
20120425.
Thompson, L. L. (2012). The mind and heart of the negotiator (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:PrenticeHall.
Truffaut, F., & Scott, H. G. (1983). Hitchcock. NewYork:Simon and Schuster.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT:GraphicsPress.
Tufte, E. R. (2003). The cognitive style of PowerPoint (Vol. 2006). Cheshire, CT:GraphicsPress.

268 References
 269

Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies, 57(4), 247262.
van Gog, T. (2014). The signaling (or cueing) principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.),
The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (Second ed., pp. 263278) New York: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Viegas, F. B., Wattenberg, M., Van Ham, F., Kriss, J., & McKeon, M. (2007). Many eyes:a site for visualiza-
tion at Internet scale. Visualization and Computer Graphics, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6), 11211128.
Visual-literacy.org. A periodic table of visualization methods. Retrieved from http://www.visual-literacy.org/
periodic_table/periodic_table.html
Williams, K. D., Bourgeois, M. J., & Croyle, R. T. (1993). The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil
trials. Law and Human Behavior, 17(6),597.
Woodside, A. G., Sood, S., & Miller, K. E. (2008). When consumers and brands talk:Storytelling theory and
research in psychology and marketing. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 97145.
Yalch, R. F., & Elmore-Yalch, R. (1984). The effect of numbers on the route to persuasion. Journal of Consumer
Research, 11, 522527.
Yau, N. (2011). Visualize this:the FlowingData guide to design, visualization, and statistics. Indianapolis, IN:John
Wiley &Sons.
Zelazny, G. (1996). Say it with charts. NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Zelazny, G. (2006). Say it with presentations. NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Zuckerman, M., & Driver, R. E. (1989). What sounds beautiful is good:The vocal attractiveness stereotype.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13(2),6782.

CHAPTER8

Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams, organiza-
tions, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451474.
Allen, J. A., Sands, S. J., Mueller, S. L., Frear, K. A., Mudd, M., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2012). Employees feel-
ings about more meetings:An overt analysis and recommendations for improving meetings. Management
Research Review, 35(5), 405418.
Ancona, D., Bresman, H., & Kaeufer, K. (2002). The Comparative Advantage of X-Teams. Sloan Management
Review (Spring).
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design:Predictors of new product team perfor-
mance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321341.
Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and their effects on satisfac-
tion:The importance of managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 254264.
Archer, J., & Stuart-Cox, K. (2013). Skills for business analysis. In P. Pullan & J. Archer (Eds.), Business Analysis
and Leadership:Influencing Change. London:Kogan Page Publishers.
Ashley, A. (2005). Oxford handbook of commercial correspondence. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management:cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time
to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337342.
Axelrod, R. (1980a). Effective choice in the prisoners dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1),325.
Axelrod, R. (1980b). More effective choice in the prisoners dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(3),
379403.
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 13901396.
Axelrod, R. M. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. NewYork:BasicBooks.

269
References
270

Bang, H., Fuglesang, S. L., Ovesen, M. R., & Eilertsen, D. E. (2010). Effectiveness in top management group
meetings:The role of goal clarity, focused communication, and learning behavior. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 51(3), 253261.
Barends, E., ten Have, S., & Huisman, F. (2012). Learning from other evidence-based practices:the case of
medicine. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 2542).
NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress.
Barling, J., Weber, T., & Kelloway, E. K. (1996). Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal
and financial outcomes:Afield experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6),827.
Bazerman, M. H., & Neale, M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. NewYork:The FreePress.
Bendor, J., Kramer, R. M., & Stout, S. (1991). When in doubt Cooperation in a noisy prisoners dilemma.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 35(4), 691719.
Bluedorn, A. C., Turban, D. B., & Love, M. S. (1999). The effects of stand-up and sit-down meeting formats on
meeting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2),277.
Bradley, J. (2008). Management based critical success factors in the implementation of Enterprise Resource
Planning systems. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 9(3), 175200.
Bragger, J. D., Kutcher, E., Morgan, J., & Firth, P. (2002). The effects of the structured interview on reducing
biases against pregnant job applicants. Sex Roles, 46(78), 215226.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations:Amul-
tilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795817.
Brett, J. M. (2000). Culture and negotiation. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 97104.
Brown, S. W., & Swartz, T. A. (1989). A gap analysis of professional service quality. The Journal of
Marketing,9298.
Bryant, A. (2010, March 20). Just give him 5 sentences, not War and Peace. International Herald Tribune.
Cannon, M. D., & Witherspoon, R. (2005). Actionable feedback:Unlocking the power of learning and perfor-
mance improvement. The Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 120134.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams:An investigation of antecedent
conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 12171234.
Cartwright, S., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The role of culture compatibility in successful organizational marriage.
The Academy of Management Executive, 7(2),5770.
Cartwright, S., & Schoenberg, R. (2006). Thirty years of mergers and acquisitions research:Recent advances
and future opportunities. British Journal of Management, 17(S1),S1S5.
Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management.
International Journal of Project Management, 17(3), 139145.
Cohen, S. G., Ledford, G. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). A predictive model of self-managing work team effec-
tiveness. Human Relations, 49(5), 643676.
Crainer, S., & Dearlove, D. (2004). The write stuff. Business Strategy Review, 15(4),1924.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in func-
tionally diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761773.
De Bono, E. (1999). Six Thinking Hats (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:Back BayBooks.
De Janasz, S. C., Sullivan, S. E., & Whiting, V. (2003). Mentor networks and career success:Lessons for turbu-
lent times. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(4),7891.
Department of the Air Force. (1998). Crew Resource Management (CRM)Basic Concepts. Andrews Air Force
Base, Maryland.
Dey, P. K., Kinch, J., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2007). Managing risk in software development projects:a case study.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(2), 284303.

270 References
 271

Doumont, J.-L. (2009). Trees, maps, and theorems: effective communication for rational minds. Kraainem,
Belgium:Principiae.
Drucker, P. F. (2004). What makes an effective executive? Harvard Business Review, 82(6),5863.
Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done:Group and organizational influ-
ences on the detection and correction of human error. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(1),528.
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room:How team leaders promote learning in interdis-
ciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 14191452.
Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory:Processes of judgment and choice. Journal
of Accounting Research,131.
Emanuel, E. J. (2013). Going to the moon in health care:medicines big hairy audacious goal (BHAG). JAMA,
310(18), 19251926.
Fischer, U., & Orasanu, J. (2000, August). Error-challenging strategies: Their role in preventing and correcting
errors. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
San Diego,CA.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes:Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.).
NewYork:Penguin.
Fisk, C. L. (2006). Credit where its due:The law and norms of attribution. Georgetown Law Journal, 95,49.
Fletcher, G., Flin, R., McGeorge, P., Glavin, R., Maran, N., & Patey, R. (2003). Anaesthetists NonTechnical
Skills (ANTS):evaluation of a behavioural marker system. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 90(5), 580588.
Flin, R., & Maran, N. (2004). Identifying and training non-technical skills for teams in acute medicine. Quality
and Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl 1), i80i84.
Flin, R., Martin, L., Goeters, K.-M., Hormann, H., Amalberti, R., Valot, C., & Nijhuis, H. (2003). Development
of the NOTECHS (non-technical skills) system for assessing pilots CRM skills. Human Factors and
Aerospace Safety, 3, 97120.
Flin, R., OConnor, P., & Mearns, K. (2002). Crew resource management:improving team work in high reli-
ability industries. Team Performance Management, 8(3/4),6878.
Frame, J. D. (2003). Managing projects in organizations:how to make the best use of time, techniques, and people.
San Francisco, CA:John Wiley &Sons.
Frohlich, N., & Oppenheimer, J. (1998). Some consequences of e-mail vs. face-to-face communication in ex-
periment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35(3), 389403.
Gardner, H. (2006). Changing minds:The art and science of changing our own and other peoples minds. Boston,
MA:Harvard BusinessPress.
Gardner, R. (2013). Introduction to debriefing. Seminars in Perinatology, 37, 166174.
Ginnett, R. C. (2010). Crews as groups:Their formation and their leadership. In B. G. Kanki, R. L. Helmreich, &
J. Anca (Eds.), Crew resource management (pp. 79110). San Diego, CA:Elsevier.
Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2),7893.
Goleman, D. (2015, April 7). How to be emotionally intelligent. International NewYorkTimes.
Hackman, J. R., & OConnor, M. (2004). What makes for a great analytic team? Individual vs. team approaches
to intelligence analysis. Intelligence Science Board, Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, Washington,DC.
Hansen, M. T., & Nohria, N. (2004). How to build collaborative advantage. MIT Sloan Management Review,
46(1),2230.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,
employee engagement, and business outcomes:a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2),268.
Hartman, F., & Ashrafi, R. (2002). Project management in the information systems and information technolo-
gies. Project Management Journal, 33(3),515.

271
References
272

Heilman, M. E., Hornstein, H. A., Cage, J. H., & Herschlag, J. K. (1984). Reactions to prescribed leader behav-
ior as a function of role perspective:The case of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(1),50.
Helmreich, R. L. (2000). On error management: lessons from aviation. British Medical Journal, 320(7237),
781785.
Hewson, M. G., & Little, M. L. (1998). Giving feedback in medical education. Journal of General Internal
Medicine, 13(2), 111116.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management
Review, 30(1), 146165.
Jay, A. (1976). How to run a meeting. Harvard Business Review, 54(2),4357.
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving:Emotional intelligence
and conflict resolution. Human Performance, 17(2), 195218.
Kappelman, L. A., McKeeman, R., & Zhang, L. (2006). Early warning signs of IT project failure:The dominant
dozen. Information Systems Management, 23(4),3136.
Kawasaki, G. (2008). Reality check:The irreverent guide to outsmarting, outmanaging, and outmarketing your com-
petition. NewYork:Penguin.
Kennedy, J. F. (1962). John F. Kennedy Moon SpeechRice Stadium. Speech. John F. Kennedy Moon SpeechRice
Stadium. Rice Stadium, Houston,12.
Kerzner, H. R. (2003). Project management:a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling (8th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley &Sons.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R.
Ilgen, & R. J. Kilmoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12):Industrial and Organizational Psychology
(pp. 333375). NewYork:John Wiley &Sons.
Leach, D. J., Rogelberg, S. G., Warr, P. B., & Burnfield, J. L. (2009). Perceived meeting effectiveness:The role of
design characteristics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(1),6576.
Levashina, J., Hartwell, C. J., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2014). The structured employment inter-
view:Narrative and quantitative review of the research literature. Personnel Psychology, 67(1), 241293.
Lussier, R., & Achua, C. (2007). Leadership: Theory, application, & skill development (3rd ed.). Mason,
OH:Thomson.
Macan, T. (2009). The employment interview:Areview of current studies and directions for future research.
Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 203218.
Madson, P. R. (2005). Improv wisdom:Dont prepare, just show up. NewYork:BellTower.
Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2007). Negotiation genius: How to overcome obstacles and achieve brilliant
results at the bargaining table and beyond. NewYork:BantamBooks.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 19972007:Areview of recent
advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410476.
McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: a meta-analysis of the result.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2),314.
Meredith, J. R., & Mantel Jr, S. J. (2009). Project management: a managerial approach (7th ed.). Hoboken,
NJ:John Wiley &Sons.
Moss, S. E., & Sanchez, J. I. (2004). Are your employees avoiding you? Managerial strategies for closing the
feedback gap. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1),3244.
Murphy, A. H., & Daan, H. (1984). Impacts of feedback and experience on the quality of subjective probabil-
ity forecasts. Comparison of results from the first and second years of the Zierikzee experiment. Monthly
Weather Review, 112(3), 413423.
National Research Council. (2011a). Intelligence analysis for tomorrow:Advances from the behavioral and social
sciences. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.

272 References
 273

National Research Council. (2011b). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Nelson, R. R. (2007). IT project management: infamous failures, classic mistakes, and best practices. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 6(2),6778.
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe:The effects of leader inclusiveness and profes-
sional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 27(7), 941966.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General
Psychology, 2(2), 175220.
Nixon, C. T., & Littlepage, G. E. (1992). Impact of meeting procedures on meeting effectiveness. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 6(3), 361369.
Nowak, M., & Sigmund, K. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoners
Dilemma game. Nature, 364(6432),5658.
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (1992). Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations. Nature, 355(6357), 250253.
Ojasalo, J. (2001). Managing customer expectations in professional services. Managing Service Quality, 11(3),
200212.
Orasanu, J. (2010). Flight crew decision-making. In B. G. Kanki, R. L. Helmreich, & J. Anca (Eds.), Crew
resource management (pp. 147180). San Diego, CA:Elsevier.
zaralli, N. (2003). Effects of transformational leadership on empowerment and team effectiveness. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 24(6), 335344.
Papke-Shields, K. E., Beise, C., & Quan, J. (2010). Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it
matter to project success? International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 650662.
Parks, C. D., & Komorita, S. S. (1998). Reciprocity research and its implications for the negotiation process.
International Negotiation, 3(2), 151169.
Parmenter, D. (2007). Key performance indicators:developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. Hoboken,
NJ:John Wiley &Sons.
Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., Hemingway, C., Mohdzain, Z., & Shah, M. (2007). The importance of context
in programme management:An empirical review of programme practices. International Journal of Project
Management, 25(1),4155.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006a). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1),62.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006b). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense:Profiting from evidence-
based management. Boston, MA:Harvard BusinessPress.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2007). Suppose we took evidence-based management seriously:Implications for
reading and writing management. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 153155.
Pfeffer, J., & Veiga, J. F. (1999). Putting people first for organizational success. The Academy of Management
Executive, 13(2),3748.
Pinkley, R. L., Neale, M. A., & Bennett, R. J. (1994). The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotia-
tion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57(1), 97116.
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional intelligence, leader-
ship effectiveness, and team outcomes. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(1),2140.
Pruyn, P. W., & Sterling, M. R. (2006). Space flight resource management:lessons learned from astronaut team
learning. Reflections:The SoL Journal, 7(2),4557.
Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metcalfe, D. (2002). Negotiation analysis:the science and art of collaborative decision
making. Cambridge, MA:Harvard UniversityPress.
Rall, M., Manser, T., & Howard, S. (2000). Key elements of debriefing for simulator training. European Journal
of Anaesthesiology, 17(8), 516517.

273
References
274

Ramsey, R. P., & Sohi, R. S. (1997). Listening to your customers:the impact of perceived salesperson listening
behavior on relationship outcomes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(2), 127137.
Rogers, D. G. (2010). Crew resource management:Spaceflight resource management. In B. G. Kanki, R. L.
Helmreich, & J. Anca (Eds.), Crew resource management (pp. 301316). San Diego, CA:Elsevier.
Romano, N. C., & Nunamaker Jr, J. F. (2001, January 36). Meeting analysis:Findings from research and practice.
Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on system sciences., Maui,HA.
Ron, N., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2006). How organizations learn:Post-flight reviews in an F-16 fighter
squadron. Organization Studies, 27(8), 10691089.
Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as evidence-based management? Academy of Management
Review, 31(2), 256269.
Rousseau, D. M. (2012). Organizational behaviors contributions to evidence-based management. In D. M.
Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management (pp. 6178). New York: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner
periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(5), 9871008.
Salas, E., Klein, C., King, H., Salisbury, M., Augenstein, J. S., Birnbach, D. J., Robinson, D. W., Upshaw, C.
(2008). Debriefing medical teams:12 evidence-based best practices and tips. Joint Commission Journal on
Quality and Patient Safety, 34(9), 518527.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Helping: How to offer, give, and receive help. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers,Inc.
Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2009). Tagging thinking types in asynchronous discus-
sion groups:Effects on critical thinking. Interactive Learning Environments, 17(1),7794.
Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., & Mark Keil, P. C. (2001). Identifying software project risks:an international Delphi
study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4),536.
Schneider, A. K. (2002). Shattering negotiation myths:Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of negotiation
style. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 7, 143233.
Schroeder, J., & Epley, N. (2015). The sound of intellect:speech reveals a thoughtful mind, increasing a job
candidates appeal. Psychological Science,115.
Sebenius, J. K. (1992). Negotiation analysis:Acharacterization and review. Management Science, 38(1),1838.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153189.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (Vol. 136). Cambridge, MA:MITpress.
Smith, H. J., & Keil, M. (2003). The reluctance to report bad news on troubled software projects:a theoretical
model. Information Systems Journal, 13(1),6995.
Sderlund, J. (2004). On the broadening scope of the research on projects:a review and a model for analysis.
International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 655667.
Spector, B. (2004). An interview with Roger Fisher and William Ury. The Academy of Management Executive,
18(3), 101108.
Stewart, M. (2009). The management myth:Debunking modern business philosophy. NewYork:Norton.
Sussman, S. W., & Sproull, L. (1999). Straight talk:Delivering bad news through electronic communication.
Information Systems Research, 10(2), 150166.
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1973). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review,
36(4), 95101.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? Ameta-
analysis. Human Factors:The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55(1), 231245.
Thompson, L. L. (2011). Making the team:Aguide for managers (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.

274 References
 275

Thompson, L. L. (2012). The mind and heart of the negotiator (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:PrenticeHall.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management,
30(3), 413432.
Turman, L. (2005). So you want to be a producer. NewYork:Three RiversPress.
Ury, W. (2007). Getting past no:negotiating in difficult situations. NewYork:BantamBooks.
Valacich, J. S., Paranka, D., George, J. F., & Nunamaker, J. (1993). Communication concurrency and the new
media a new dimension for media richness. Communication Research, 20(2), 249276.
Van Boven, L., & Thompson, L. (2003). A look into the mind of the negotiator:Mental models in negotiation.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(4), 387404.
Volkema, R. J., & Niederman, F. (1996). Planning and managing organizational meetings:An empirical analysis
of written and oral communications. Journal of Business Communication, 33(3), 275292.
Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal of Applied Psychology,
63(2), 151162.
Whetten, D. A., & Camerron, K. S. (2002). Developing management skills (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ:Pearson Education.
White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project managementAn empirical study. International
Journal of Project Management, 20(1),111.
Wolff, H.-G., & Moser, K. (2009). Effects of networking on career success: a longitudinal study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(1),196.
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective
intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686688.
Wright, J. N. (1997). Time and budget:the twin imperatives of a project sponsor. International Journal of Project
Management, 15(3), 181186.
Wu, J., & Axelrod, R. (1995). How to cope with noise in the iterated prisoners dilemma. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 39(1), 183189.
Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson-Brown, S., & Maran, N. (2006). Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating
room:a review of the literature. Surgery, 139(2), 140149.
Zerzan, J. T., Hess, R., Schur, E., Phillips, R. S., & Rigotti, N. (2009). Making the most of mentors:a guide for
mentees. Academic Medicine, 84(1), 140144.
zur Muehlen, M., & Ho, D. T.-Y. (2006). Risk management in the BPM lifecycle. Paper presented at the Business
Process Management workshops in September 2005. Nancy, France.

CHAPTER9

Ackoff, R. L. (2006). Why few organizations adopt systems thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
23(5), 705708.
Arkes, H. R. (2001). Overconfidence in judgmental forecasting. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.) Principles of forecast-
ing:Ahandbook for researchers and practioners (pp. 495515). Boston, MA:Springer.
Arkes, H. R., & Ayton, P. (1999). The sunk cost and Concorde effects:are humans less rational than lower
animals? Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 591600.
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 35(1), 124140.
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. D., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership:Theoretical extensions,
measurement and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 173191.
Baer, M., & Brown, G. (2012). Blind in one eye:How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of sug-
gestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1),6071.

275
References
276

Baker, J., & Ct, J. (2003). Sport-specific practice and the development of expert decision-making in team ball
sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(1),1225.
Basadur, M. (1995). Optimal ideationevaluation ratios. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1),6375.
Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley &Sons.
Boicu, M., Tecuci, G., & Schum, D. (2008, 34 December). Intelligence analysis ontology for cognitive assis-
tants. Proceedings of the Conference Ontology for the Intelligence Community:Towards Effective Exploitation
and Integration of Intelligence Resources. Fairfax,VA.
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 10(3), 214234.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6),8492.
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 12(1),2943.
Coman, A., & Ronen, B. (2009). Overdosed management:How excess of excellence begets failure. Human
Systems Management, 28(3),9399.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to
deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74118.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset:The new psychology of success. RandomHouse.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching,
and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103120.
Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in
medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 79(10), S70S81.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Rmer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of
expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3),363.
Fischhoff, B., & Chauvin, C. (2011). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Frame, J. D. (2003). Managing projects in organizations:how to make the best use of time, techniques, and people.
San Francisco, CA:John Wiley &Sons.
Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero, C. (2004). Police officers credibility judgments:Accuracy and estimated abil-
ity. International Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 254275.
George, R. Z., & Bruce, J. B. (2008). Analyzing intelligence: Origins, obstacles, and innovations. Washington,
DC:Georgetown UniversityPress.
Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1),6074.
Greenhalgh, T. (2002). Intuition and evidenceuneasy bedfellows? British Journal of General Practice, 52(478),
395400.
Hersman, D., Hart, C., & Sumwalt, R. (2010). Loss of thrust in both engines after encountering a flock of
birds and subsequent ditching on the Hudson River: Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/03, National
Transportation Safety Board, Washington,DC.
Jackson, D., Firtko, A., & Edenborough, M. (2007). Personal resilience as a strategy for surviving and thriving in
the face of workplace adversity:a literature review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 60(1),19.
Jung, B., & Reidenberg, M. M. (2007). Physicians being deceived. Pain Medicine, 8(5), 433437.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
NewYork.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it:how difficulties in recognizing ones own incom-
petence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6),1121.
Langley, A. (1995). Between paralysis by analysis and extinction by instinct. Sloan Management Review,
36,63.
Makridakis, S., & Gaba, A. (1998). Judgment:its role and value for strategy. INSEAD.

276 References
 277

McIntyre, M. E. (1997). Lucidity and Science I: Writing skills and the pattern perception hypothesis.
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 22(3), 199216.
Medawar, P. B. (1979). Advice to a young scientist. NewYork:BasicBooks.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). Hes guilty!:Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception.
Law and Human Behavior, 26(5),469.
National Research Council. (2011a). Intelligence analysis for tomorrow:Advances from the behavioral and social
sciences. Washington, DC:National AcademiesPress.
National Research Council. (2011b). Intelligence analysis:Behavioral and social scientific foundations. Washington,
DC:National AcademiesPress.
Ness, R. B. (2012). Innovation generation:how to produce creative and useful scientific ideas. NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Orasanu, J. (2010). Flight crew decision-making. In B. G. Kanki, R. L. Helmreich, & J. Anca (Eds.), Crew
resource management (pp. 147180). San Diego, CA:Elsevier.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense:Profiting from evidence-
based management. Boston, MA:Harvard BusinessPress.
Polya, G. (1945). How to solve it:Anew aspect of mathematical method. Princeton, NJ:Princeton UniversityPress.
Research Councils UK. (2001). Joint statement of the Research Councils/Arts and Humanities Research
Boards skills training requirements for research students. London:Research CouncilsUK.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155169.
Rogers, D. G. (2010). Crew Resource Management:Spaceflight resource management. In B. G. Kanki, R. L.
Helmreich, & J. Anca (Eds.), Crew resource management (pp. 301316). San Diego, CA:Elsevier.
Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers:Designing for the future
of the field. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Siddique, Z., Panchal, J., Schaefer, D., Haroon, S., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (2012, August). Competencies for
Innovating in the 21st Century. Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers 2012
International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference. Chicago,IL.
Simmons, M. S., Nides, M. A., Rand, C. S., Wise, R. A., & Tashkin, D. P. (2000). Unpredictability of decep-
tion in compliance with physician-prescribed bronchodilator inhaler use in a clinical trial. CHEST Journal,
118(2), 290295.
Simon, H. A., & Chase, W. G. (1973). Skill in chess:Experiments with chess-playing tasks and computer simu-
lation of skilled performance throw light on some human perceptual and memory processes. American
Scientist, 61, 394403.
Smith, G. C., & Pell, J. P. (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational
challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327(7429),
14591461.
Southwick, S. M., Vythilingam, M., & Charney, D. S. (2005). The psychobiology of depression and resilience to
stress:implications for prevention and treatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 255291.
Thompson, J. M.T. (2013). Advice to a young researcher:with reminiscences of a life in science. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A:Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 371(1993),
20120425.
Thompson, L. L. (2012). The mind and heart of the negotiator (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:PrenticeHall.
Toegel, G., & Barsoux, J.-L. (2012). How to become a better leader. MIT Sloan Management Review,
53(3),5160.
von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research:Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Williams, E. J. (2012). Lies and cognition:How do we tell lies and can we detect them? Cardiff University.

277
References
278
 279

INDEX

NOTE:Page numbers followed by t indicate a table. Italicized page numbers indicate a figure. Page numbers
followed by n and another number indicate a numbered footnote.
abductive logic, 8889,89 SMARTER tool for evaluating, selecting, 150156
Abela, A.,162 solution maps role in identifying, 121,141
ACH. See Analysis of Competing Hypotheses testing for,139
actual causes, determination of,79116 unsuitable, removal of, 141149
analysis phase,87103 value in considering,119
concentration on what matters,8183 Alternative Uses test,139
decision phase, 103110 American Association for the Advancement of
drawing conclusions,110 Science,84
in finding Harry, 110112 analogies, 128129, 138,183
hypotheses set development,7984 Analysis of Competing Hypotheses(ACH)
phrasing of hypotheses,8485 debate about effectivenessof,94
prioritizing hypotheses testing,8587 description,92
Ainsworth,S.,77 limitations of,113
Allen, R.J.,109 anchoring
Alley, M., 174,177 brainwriting and, 127128
alternatives definition,47
in building issue maps,68 Ancona, D.G.,126
comparing performance of, 69, 149156 answers
diagnosis aspect in choosing,19 communication of solutions,194
feasibility determination, 142,142 ICE answers in issue maps, 59, 60, 60,61,78
in finding Harry, 3637,37t MECE structure of issue maps and, 10,
generating, 9n25,25,67 5860,124
insightfulness in comparing,67,75 problem framing and,2225
MECE and,67 solution maps and,48
optimizing and,62 triangulating on, 147148
phantom alternatives,159 argument/hypothesismaps
premature closure and,47 as alternative to ACH,94
processes vs., 120121 attributesof,48
role of subconscious in choosing,132 benefits of using, 96, 97,97,98
satisficing and,62 benefits to critical thinking of,38,94
screens for evaluating, selecting, 141144, choice of, in communicating, 164169
142144 description,94
280

argument/hypothesismaps (Cont.) team assemblage, 126127

element types in,93,94 transcending,139
in finding Harry, 9496,95 brainwriting, 125, 127128
minimizing confirmation bias,104 Brownell, Kelly,23
origin of,113 bubble charts, 188, 188189
shared propertiesof,47 Byrne, R.M.,101
van Gelders coining of term,113
arguments. See also argument/hypothesismaps Caldwell, D.F.,126
choices for effective communication, 164169 causes of problems. See actual causes; rootcauses
compelling/tailoring to audiences, 12,161 CE. See collectively exhaustive (CE) branches of
graphical breakdownsof,10 issuesmaps
length consideration,39 Chabris, C.F.,156
parallelism of,134n53 Chamberlin, T.C.,77
PEL model and,87 change, Gardner on facilitation of,199
realizing logic gaps in,134 charts, quantitative,185
Aristotelian persuasion, 166169,167 CIDNI (nonimmediate) problems,5
Arjona, Javier,113 challenges related to,231
assertion-evidence slide structure, 176180,200 characteristics/typesof,6
attitudinal overconfidence,48 evaluation of,67
Axelrod, R.,226 generalist/specialist problem solvers,8
issue maps and,65
Bacon, Francis,101 problem framing,2144
bar charts, 183, 185186, 187, 188,200 problem solving teams,78,8
Bassok,M.,44 solving process, 57,1718
Bates, Marston,92 T-shaped problem solver, 7,8,18
Bayesian inference, 103, 104109 Clark, R.M.,77
basics of, 105106 closed problems,19
benefits and limitations of, 106108 co-acting teams,226t
in finding Harry, 107, 107108,108t cognitive overconfidence,48
usage examples, 106t, 108t,109t collectively exhaustive (CE) branches of issues maps.
Bayesian networks,47 See also independent and collectively exhaustive
Bazerman, M.H.,104 (ICE); mutually exclusive and collectively
Beaufre, A.,1819 exhaustive (ME) structure of issuemaps
belief preservation, 103104,114 answers and,60
Bellotti, V.M.,77 deciding when to stop and,65
Berlin, Isaiah,18 description, 1011, 58, 59, 64,75,81
bias. See also confirmationbias finding Harry,75
hindsight bias,15 generating answers and,60
recall/retrievability bias,144n10 listing theories and,81
Bird-and-Trains problem (Posner),44 right idea-generation macro activity choices,125
Boileau, Nicolas,39 solution maps and,120
Bono, Edward de,129 communication of solutions, 161201. See also
Boroditsky, L., 2223, 23n5,33 slides/slide decks; slides/slide decks, design
brainstorming principles; storyline
debate in,132 advising decision makers,169
example of using,30 answering questions approach,194
facilitation of,127 argument choices, 164169
four rules of,125 Aristotelean persuasion in, 166169,167
group vs. individual, 125126 audience, engagement with,194
limitations of effectiveness,126 audience, preparation of, 191192
Osborns popularizationof,63 closing statement,162
role in improving idea generation,128 delivery, 191198

280 Index
 281

detail level determination,170 Davis, R.H.,104

determination of objectives,162 decision making for hypotheses, 103110
effectiveness of informal presentations,199 avoiding biases, 103105
in finding Harry, 171,199 using Bayesian inference, 104109
From-To/Think-Do Matrix, 162, 162t,199 using Occams razor, 109110,112
language guidelines, 192194 decision science,63
length of presentation determination, decision theory,44
169170,170 decisiontrees
preparation of audience, 191192 differences with issue maps,77
sequencing, 170173 shared properties with issue maps,47
storyline, crafting of, 163, 163,196 splitting paths/converging paths and,138
telling compelling stories, 162173 deductive logic, 8788,89
use of effective slide design, 173191 Delbecq, A.L.,139
use of strong introduction,169 Delphi method, 125, 128,139
complex problems diagnostic definition card. See why card (diagnostic
definition,6 definitioncard)
complication(s), 229238 diagnostic issuemaps
in finding Harry, 43,118 actual cause determination and,81
holding-hands rule and,39,40 as analytic roadmap,57
as how card component, 117,118 description, 2,4,49
as inciting event, in screenwriting,37n42 divergent thinking supportedby,65
introductory flow and, 3839,39,40 finding Harry, 4, 7576,76,89
key question and, 35, 37, 37,40,44 key questions in, 79, 121,124
management of, 38, 217, 229238 MECE process and,73
points/bullets in supportof,38 optimization and,63
as project chart component,204 role in capturing evidence,111
rabbit rule and,40 root cause identification and, 4,45,79
storytelling introductions and,44 solution map comparison, 121, 124,136
team management and,217 use of abduction in development,89
as why card component, 41,42,43 why questions and, 43,48,50
concept maps,47 diagnostic key question
concept visuals, 185, 189,189 complications and,37,38
conditioning description of,2830
Nesss observationon,72 in finding Harry, 34t, 37t,40,43
resistance to, in problem solving,22,23 identificationof,2
confirmationbias on project definition card,3,22
defined,48 rabbit/holding-hands rules and,40
definition,15,48 as what card component, 3,22,27
in interpreting information,15 in why process, 4,42,43
Nickersonon,77 dialogue maps,47
strategies for reducing, 80, 104,114 Diehl, M.,127
confirmatory evidence, 101102 Diffenbach,J.,77
conforming,126 dilution effect,92
Conklin,J.,77 disconfirmatory evidence, 100,
convergent thinking. See also divergent thinking 101102,104
individuals vs. groups use of,127 divergent and convergent thinking
key questions and,28,51 issue maps and, 47,6364
in problem solving, 9, 911,17,17 optimization and,63
use of CE and, 1011,11 problem diagnosis and,28
Cousins, Robert,44 use of CE and,1011
Cowley, M.,101 use of in problem solving, 9, 9, 17,17,28
creativity theory,61 divergent/convergent thinking patterns,9,9

281
Index
282

divergent thinking. See also convergent thinking evaluation of, 98,99t

benefits of,119 in finding Harry, 9495, 102, 108t,112
diagnostic maps and,65 gathering, 115, 144, 146147, 148, 156,195
individuals vs. groups use of, 127,128n26 grading credibility of, 113114, 146, 146147
issue maps and,47,64 graphical tools for marshaling,94n52
key questions and,28,63 hypotheses maps and,93,95
in problem solving, 9, 911, 11,17,17 identifying, 4, 13,87,91
Smith/Wardon,77 induction and,88
use of CE and, 1011,125 issue maps and, 47, 55, 56,224
thedo less-than-ideal, use of,230
alternative assessment and, 142,145 misdiagnosisof,91
in client management,221 overconfidence regarding,235
description, 2, 2, 5,9,17 in Presumption-Evidence-Logic model,87
divergent/convergent thinkingand,9 relation to hypotheses,100t
in finding Harry, 3, 26, 27,34,69 relevance of,115
from-to/think-do matrix, 162, 162t,199 role in decision making,8,87
key questions and,29 scientific ideal in using,1617
as project chart component,204 search for consistency in,115
as what card component,3,22 slide decks use of, 163, 165, 168, 170, 171, 174,
downward norm setting,126 176180, 185, 196, 199,200
Dwyer, C.P.,77 supporting vs. opposing, 81, 82, 84,
100102,102n84
Eden,C.,77 suspected/unsuspected,92
Edison, Thomas,110 testing of,54,54
Edwards, W., 44,229 triangulating, 148,148
Efron,B.,44 trustworthiness of,146
Eisenfhr, F.,248, 262 working with,97102
Elmore-Yalch, R., 167168 evidence-based management,225
Enigma codes (World WarII),7 evidence maps,47
enlisting others, 13, 17, 25,34t
Eppler, M.J.,77 face-to-face teams,226t
evidence,97102 fault trees,47
abduction and,8889 Feynman, Richard
absenceof,92 advice to not fool yourself,1415
ACH and,94 on fragility of knowledge,7
analysis/trackingof,92 filters, for identifying key questions,34t
assertion-evidence structure, 174, 176180,200 findingHarry
biases and, 103105,150 argument/hypothesis map for, 9496,95
collecting, 3,22,27 communicating solutions in,199
compatibility of,147 complication in,34t
conclusions based on,171 crafting of storyline for,199
confirmatory vs. disconfirmatory approach, decision tool for,5t
101102 diagnostic definition (why) card,43
consistency of,115 diagnostic issue map, 4, 7576,76
contradictory, 114,115 do processin,5
credibility attributes of,99t enlisting others,34t
definition,87 evidence in,102
diagnosis maps and,111 four-step approach,35
diagnostic, 3, 15,22,27 framing the project, 2122, 2829, 3337,
differentiation of data from,113 39,4144
disconfirmatory, 100, 101102,104 hypotheses set for, 8283, 83, 110, 111,112
drawing conclusions from, 44, 57,110 introductory flowin,39

282 Index
 283

issue map,51 how card (solution definition card), 4, 117, 118,

key question identification, 3335,34t 120121,238
presentation in,171 how-how diagrams,47
project definition card,3 Huff, A.S.,77
selecting solutions, 150155,158 Hurson, Tim,61
the so what?in,34 hypotheses. See also argument/hypothesis maps;
steps in four-step process,35 decision making for hypotheses; hypotheses
the how processin,4 set; issue maps, progression from question to
the what process in, 3, 2527,27 conclusions
the why in, 3, 4, 26, 27, 3334, 37, 43, 52, 76, abductive/deductive/inductive analysis, 88,
107,112 8889,89
finite element analysis (FEA), 81, 82,113 assigning to issue maps,8183
Fiol, C.M.,77 comparing,85
Fischhoff, Baruch,63 convergent thinking and,61
fixation, definition, 47, 69,133 decision making, 103110
Fleming, Alexander,103 diagnosis map and,50
fooling ourselves, approach to avoiding diagnosticity of,116
common ways,15t drawing conclusions from, 57,110
preventive evidence-based approach,1516 evidence in,97102
replacing unwarranted self-confidence,16 formal, 4, 45, 46,47,51
respecting scientific ideal,1617 formulation of,2,4
Frame, Davidson,44 forward-/backward-driven reasoning
From-To/Think-Do Matrix (Abela), 162, strategies,89,91
162t,199 how processand,4
idiographic vs. nomothetic,115
Gardner, Howard, 162,199 key questions and, 51,8485
Garner, J.K.,174 linking with data,77
Gauch, H.G., 84,149 mutation of,51n36
Ginnett, Robert,225 prioritizing the testing of,8587
Goleman, D.,210t pseudo-/over-/misdiagnosis problems,9192
Goodwin, P.,168 root causes and,29
Gricean maxims,74 summary of main attributes,85
groupthink, 125,138 testing of, 29, 55, 65, 84, 84, 101,115
unequivocality of,84,84
Hammond, J.S.,129 why process and,4,50
Hammond, N.V.,77 working with evidence, 9798, 99, 99t,
Hargadon, A.,139 100102,100t
Heuvel, L.N.V.,77 hypothesesset
hindsight bias,15 development of, 45, 46, 51, 66,7985
Hogan, M.J.,77 for finding Harry, 8283,83
holding-hands rule, 3839, 40,124 issue maps and, 47, 54,80,80
thehow laying out,51
convergent/divergent thinking and,9,11 testing,54
description, 2, 45,17,29 hypothesis maps. See argument/hypothesismaps
in finding Harry, 4, 26, 27, 34, 133, 150,158
in issue maps, 10, 10,48,51 ICE. See independent and collectively
key questions and, 29, 31, 32, 120, 121, 129132 exhaustive(ICE)
measuring creativity and,138 IDEO, 125126
parallelism and,135 idiographic hypotheses,115
storyline development and,195 ill-defined problems, 6, 19n63, 33, 44,206
as what card component, 3,27,41 independent and collectively exhaustive (ICE),
whys relation to,4,29 answers in issue maps, 59, 60, 60,61,78

283
Index
284

individual likelihood of success, 5t, 151154, issue maps, progression from question to
152t,155t conclusions,5057
induction by elimination,101 analysis, prioritizing and conduction, 55,55,57
inductive logic,88,89 assigning of hypotheses,8183
influence diagrams,47 extensive expansion of,51,52
introductory flow, in problem framing,3540 hypothesis sets, drawing conclusions on,56,57
choice/use of data,3536 hypothesis sets, laying out of, 51,53,54
complications,3738 hypothesis sets, testing of, 5455,55
fine tuning,3840 key question structure determination,50,51
holding-hands rule, 3839, 40,124 vertical/horizontal moves,57
intermediary stepsin,39 why question, initial step,50
necessary/sufficient information,35 issue trees,47
rabbit rule, 3839,40,41
situation statement, concise vs. precise, Jones, Morgan,126
3637,37
inventive problems,19 Kahneman, D., 23n5, 24, 44,103
Ishikawa (or cause-and-effect or fishbone) Kaplan, R.S.,77
diagrams,47 Kawasaki, Guy,178
issue diagrams,47,77 Keisler, J.M.,173
issue maps, 4549. See also collectively exhaustive Kelley, Tom,126
(CE) branches of issues maps; diagnostic issue Keynes, John Maynard,104
maps; issue maps, progression from question to key questions, in problem framing, 2834. See also
conclusions; mutually exclusive (ME) branches diagnostic key question; sowhat?
of issues maps; solutionmaps appropriate phrasing of, 33,34t
analogical approach to unfamiliar complications contributions to, 3738, 37t,39,40
problems,7072 constraints/frames,32
analytic propertiesof,47 diagnostic questions, 2, 3, 4, 22, 27, 2829, 33, 34,
attributes,4748 37t, 38t,40
CE branches,1011 filters for identifying,34t
CIDNI problems and,65 finding Harry, 3335,34t
components,46 in issue maps,46
decision trees differences with,77 right scope, determination of, 32,34t
decision trees shared properties with,47 right topic, determination of, 3031, 31,34t
description, 10, 10,45,47 what, why, how questions,2930
development issues,77 Kosslyn, Stephen,169
diagnostic,2,4
elementsof,49 Langer,T.,77
four basic rules of,48,50 Leebron, D., 143, 143. See also SAILSscreen
generating alternative breakdowns, 67, 68,6970 linearity, of problem-solving process,44
ideas for starting,7075 Littlewood, J.E.,50
insightfulness of, 6770,69,78 logic trees,47
key questions answered by, 46, 4950,51
MECE structure of, 5867, 72, 73, 73,74,75 Mackendrick, Alexander, 44,178
mutually exclusive branches,10 MacLean,A.,77
recycling discarded variables,72 management of complications, 229238
root causes and, 4, 43,4576 in finding Harry, 237238
setting choice for starting,70 process management, 229232
solution,2 self-management, 232237
spelling out elementsin,64 management of projects, 206211. See also team
usefulness in analysis/synthesis of hypotheses, leadership
55,5556 attributing credit to coworkers,223
using existing frameworks, 7273,74,75 client management, 221223

284 Index
 285

debriefing,223 negotiation, 219220

goal setting/prioritizing activities,12t Ness, Roberta,24,72
progress reports,163 Nickerson, R.S.,77
return-on-investment considerations,143 nomothetic hypotheses,115
risk management, 222223 nonimmediate problems. See CIDNI
McChrystal, Stanley A.,161 (nonimmediate) problems
McIntyre, Michael,50 Noonan, P.S.,173
McKee, R.,168 Norton, D.P.,77
ME. See mutually exclusive (ME) branches of not invented here syndrome,8
issuesmaps Novick, L.R.,44
MECE. See mutually exclusive and collectively
exhaustive (MECE) structure of issuemaps objective hierarchies,47
Medawar, P.B.,157 Occams razor, 16, 103, 109110,112
Minard, Charles Joseph,189 Ohmae, K.,74,77
mind maps,47 Okada,A.,77
Minto, Barbara, 170,200 organization of projects
misdiagnosing,91 defining success,205
Monk,P.,77 project plan development, 203205
Moore, D.A.,104 working the plan,205
mutation of hypotheses,51n36 Osborn, A.F.,63
mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE) overconfidence
structure of issue maps, 1011, 17,5867 attitudinal and cognitive,48
actions at crossroads,59 strategies for reducing, 78,235
answers and, 10, 5860,124 weather forecasters and,225
debating/criticism and,132 overdiagnosing,91
deciding when to stop,6567 Oxley, N.L.,127
deferring criticism and,6062
description, 10, 58, 58, 72, 73,120 Pardo, M.S.,109
differentiating causes from consequences,124 Pareto, Vilfredo,8182
finding Harry,6667 Pareto principle, 8182,113
holding-hands rule and,124 Pauling, Linus,63
with ICE answers,61 PEL. See Presupposition-Evidence-Logic
ICE vs., 60,61,78 phantom alternatives,159
making structures more,6067 phrasing filter,34t
with MECE answers,61 Platt, J.R.,77,84
optimizing and,6265 Popper, Karl, 84,101
parallelism in,134 Posner, M.I.,44
problem-solving principles and,17 potential solutions. See solutions, potential
rules for, 48,120 PowerPoint presentation package, 177179
satisficing and, 6263,63 Prain,V.,77
steps in creating new maps, 73, 74,75,75 premature closure, definition,47
mutually exclusive (ME) branches of issues maps. Presupposition-Evidence-Logic (PEL) model,87
See also mutually exclusive and collectively probability trees,47
exhaustive (MECE) structure of issuemaps problem framing,2144
debating, deferring criticism, and,132 deferring judgmentin,25
definition,10,58 defined,22
Delphi method and,128 diagnostic definition (why) card and, 28,4143
differentiating causes from consequences,124 engage system 2 thinking in,2425
finding Harry and,83n6 enlistment of othersin,25
generating answers and,60 in finding Harry, 2122, 2529, 3337, 39,4144
serendipity, designed research, and, 115116 identifying/answering questions,2225
solutions and,78 introductory flow in,3540

285
Index
286

problem framing (Cont.) analysis of, 2,4,29

key questions,2834 diagnostic map and,4,49
resist conditioning strategy in,2324 divergent/convergent thinkingand,9
scope creep in,25,27 drawing conclusions about,5058
what card project description,2527 in finding Harry, 4, 8283,83
problem solving identifying/uncovering, 9, 2223, 28, 32,
challenging assumptions in, 129130 43,4578
conventional wisdom on,15t introductory flows and,41
definition,56 issue maps and, 4, 43,4576
dissecting the problem,131 key questions and, 10, 29,4950
empirical findings about,15t potential, identification of,4578
graphical tools relatedto,77 role of issue maps in uncovering,43
principles of, 9, 9, 1011, 12t,1317 role of why analyses in uncovering, 29,43,66
subconscious work time,132 understanding,28,30
problem solving, principles routine problems,19
divergent/convergent thinking patterns,9,9
do not fool yourself,1417 Safferstone, T.,157
right skills acquisition, 11, 12t,13 SAILS screen (Leebron), 143,143
simplicity in underlying structures,1314 Sample, Steven,62
use of issue maps,1011 sand dune team,226t
procedural management,231 satisficing, 62, 63, 220,232
production blocking, 126,127 Schoemaker, Paul,61
project definition card. See whatcard Schum, D.A., 92,113
projects. See also management of projects; scope creep, in problem framing, 25, 27, 205,222
organization of projects; team leadership scope filter,34t
dealing with objections,55 screens, 141144, 142144
defining problemsin,6 Gauch/full-disclosure model, 142143
documenting of processes,224 purpose of, 141142,142
framing,2127 SAILS screen, 143,143
how card and,118 selecting solutions. See solutions, selecting
key characteristicsof,44 self-management, 232237
key questions and,33 learning to balance opposites, 234236
management phase, 205223 practicing of gained skills, 236237
return-on-investment considerations,143 skill set/attitude development, 232234
selecting/monitoring key metrics,224 Senge, Peter,18
updating maps,224 serendipity
visual support for, 185189 designed research vs., 115116
what card and, 2527,41 role in discoveries,103
why card and,42 so what aspect of,103
pseudodiagnosticity, 91,147 value of,157
Van Andels patterns of,103
quantitative charts, 185,186 Shachter, R.D.,77
questions. See key questions, in problem framing Sherborne,T.,77
Shum, Buckingham,77
rabbit rule, in introductory flow, 3839,40,41 Simon, D.J.,156
research skills (useful skills),12t simplicity in underlying structures,1314
Reynolds, Garr,174 skills acquisition (the right skills), 11, 12t,13
Rittel, H.W.,231 slides/slide decks. See also slides/slide decks, design
Rooney, J.J.,77 principles; taglines
root causes (of problems). See also diagnostic as central repository for analysis,166
issuemaps defining purpose of, 173174, 174, 175,176
addressing,2223 preparation basics, 163164

286 Index
 287

presentation package limitations,177 brainstorming of ideas, 125127

tagline support in,165 brainwriting, 127128
slides/slide decks, design principles, 173191. See challenging assumptions, 129130
also taglines controlling the number of children,122
analogies, 183185 debate,132
assertion-evidence structure, 176180, 177,179 Delphi method,128
avoidance of redundancy,182 dissection of problem,131
bold characters,182 elimination of single child node,122
characteristics/implications,181 ensuring MECE classification strategies, 124132
coherence principle,176 finding Harry, 136, 137,138
colors,181 giving subconscious time to work,132
consistent templates, 180181 innovation vs. Innovation, 131132
contiguity principle,176 linking elements to a formal hypothesis,136
defining purpose of, 173174, 174, 175,176 making branches diverge,121
extremes of design, 174,176 node value identification,123
facilitating audience comprehension, 180185 progress from key question to conclusions,
finalization of message,191 121124
fonts size and types, 181182 self-evaluation of creativity,132
modality principle,176 stopping when sufficiently explicit, 123124
multimedia principle,176 thinking about the opposite, 130131
redundancy, avoidance of,182 use of analogies, 128129
redundancy principle,176 solutions. See also communication of solutions;
removal of unnecessary information,183 solutions, potential; solutions, selecting
sideways writing, avoidance of,182 competing, evaluationof,5
signaling principle,176 conditioning and,23
simplicity,183 convergent/divergent thinking and,9,11
tables,183 critical steps and,19
understanding extremes of design, 174,176 diagnosticity and,112
visual support options, 185190 drawing conclusions and,110
SMARTER (simple multiattribute rating technique finding,2
exploiting ranks) tool, 150156,159 in finding Harry, 70, 76,112
description/purpose, 150,150t framing/diagnosing problems and,15
specific steps, 151155 hypotheses and,54
use in finding Harry, 151156, 152t, 153t, identifying, 23,29,76
154t,155t ill-defined problemsand,6
Smith, S.M., 77,128 implementation, 2,17,29
social loafing,126 incremental thinking,131
solution definition card (how card), 4, 117, 118, in issue maps,10
120121,238 mitigation tactics,15t
solution key question,2,3 principles,917
solution maps, 2, 4, 45. See also solution maps, in problem definition card,22,27
developing in project definition card,3
for finding Harry,238 satisficer and,63
how key question answeredby,48 simplificationof,36
key questions in, 48,121 specialist/generalist skills,78,8
modifying,156 topic choice and,31
potential solutions identifiedby,49 solutions, potential, 117139
removal of unsuitable alternatives,141 convergent/divergent thinkingand,9
role in identifying potential solutions, 49, drawing conclusions and,110
119138 finding,2
solution maps, developing, 119138, 156,231 implementation,3
alternatives vs. processes, 120121,121 initial step, 119,121

287
Index
288

solutions, potential (Cont.) storyline

ME and,78 advantages of starting early, 195,195
in project identification card,3 crafting of, 163, 163,196
solution maps rolein,49 in finding Harry,199
solution maps role in identifying, 49, 119138 presentation of,173
understanding the problem step,28 as suppoft for taglines, 178,196
as what card component,3,27 strategic thinking
solutions, selecting, 141159 advantagesof,8
applying SMARTER process, 150156, 151t, definition, 1819,229
152t, 155t,159 Stroebe, W.,127
capturing quick and small wins, 156158 surgical teams,226t
comparing performance of alternatives, 149156 Sutton, R.I.,139
data identification,147 System 1 (intuitive) thinking, 24, 24n16,44
evidence-gathering, 144, 146147 System 2 (reflective) thinking,24,44
finding Harry, 150155,158
individual likelihood of success evaluation, 5t, taglines (in slides/slide deck), 176182
151154, 152t,155t alternative names for,200
modifying solution maps as needed,156 distribution of story onto, 163,164
quick wins in,156 full declarative sentences in, 174, 176, 177,
removing unsuitable alternatives, 141149 177180
screens for evaluating, selecting, 141144, 142144 overloading working memory and,200
small wins in, 156157 as storyline,178
speed of success determination, 5t, 152, 152t, storyline as support for, 178,196
153t, 154,155t supportive evidence in,165
triangulating on answers, 147148 taxonomies of problems,19
use of maps in analysis,149 team leadership, 206221
use of SMARTER tool in, 150156, 152t, adapting to changing situations, 210211
155t,159 agreeing on expectations, 50, 208209
sowhat? coaching of members, 211212
analysis of, 69,171 dealing with objections,55
capturing, in tagline, 177,180 delegation role,211
in finding Harry,34 demonstrating ethical standards,218
finding/understanding, 14,17,69 formation of team,206
serendipity and,103 goal setting and,208
in slide presentations,181 Golemans leadership styles,210t
System 1 thinking and,24 information management, 217218
speed of succes, 5t, 152, 152t, 153t, 154,155t media, effective use of, 215217
Spellman, Barbara,44 member selection via structured interviews,
Spiro, J.,139 207208
Steinggraber, Sandra,28 negotiation and, 219221
Stewart,I.,77 networking and, 218219
stories (storytelling). See also communication of progress management, 163, 172,218
solutions; hypotheses qualities of members,206
communicating solutions with, 162173 right use of people, resources, 211212
compelling, 162173 running successful meetings, 213215
crafting of storyline,163 team size considerations,225
introductions in,35,44 transformational,225
McKeeon,36 value/use emotional intelligence, 206,206t
reframing of thinking and,133 teams, five types,226t
usefulness in getting funding,199 Tetlock, Philip,18
use of slides/slide decks, 163164, 165, 166, Thagard, P.,102
173191 Thibodeau, P.H., 2223,23n5

288 Index
 289

thinking. See also strategic thinking waterfall charts, 187, 188, 200201
analogical,8 von Winterfeld, D., 44,229
collectively exhaustive (CE),1011 Vroom, V.H.,139
convergent (critical), 9, 910,17,28
divergent, 9, 910,17,28 Ward, T.B., 77,128
evidence-based,25 waterfall charts, 187, 188, 200201
filters for clarifying,34t Watkins, Michael,157
innovative,32 Webber, M.M.,231
intuitive system,24t Weber,M.,77
logical,16 Welch, Gilbert,92
modular systemsof,1 thewhat
mutually exclusive (ME),10 description, 2,2,17
System 1 (intuitive), 24, 24n16,44 divergent/convergent thinkingand,9
System 2 (reflective),24,44 in finding Harry,3,34
Thompson, Leigh,126 in framing a project, 2122, 22, 27, 43,158
Thompson, Michael,178 in a From-to-/Think-Do Matrix, 162, 162t,199
topic filter,34t key questions and,28,29
transformational leadership,225 in the project chart,204
treating symptoms,18 in team management, 213217
T-shaped problem solver metaphor, 7,8,18 what card (project definition card), 3, 3, 22, 2223,
Tversky, A., 23n5, 44,103 2527,27,41
Twardy, Charles,38,77 thewhy
Tweney, R.D.,102 description, 2,4,17
type filter,34t as diagnostic key question, 2, 2829, 29, 34, 37,
Tytler,R.,77 38, 41,42,49
diagnostic maps and, 49, 50, 61, 64, 65,68,75
unequivocal hypotheses,84 divergent/convergent thinkingand,9
United Nations Millennium Development Goals,6 in finding Harry, 3, 4, 26, 27, 3334, 37, 43, 52,
Unusual Uses test,139 76, 107,112
Uzzi, B.,139 in framing a project, 2123,25
holding-hands rule and,40
value trees/value hierarchies,47 hows relation to,4,29
Van Andel, P.,103 rabbit rule and,40
Van Buren, M.E.,157 why card (diagnostic definition card), 28, 4143,117
Van den Bulte,C.,73 why-why diagrams,47
Van de Ven, A.H.,139 wicked problems (ill-defined problems),44
Van Gelder, Tim, 38, 77, 104, 113, 143,143. Wigmore charts,47
Van Waterschoot,W.,73 working memory,44
virtual teams,226t Wright, G.,168
visual support options, for slides, 185190
bar charts, 183, 185186, 187, 188,200 Yalch, R.F., 167168
bubble charts, 188, 188189
concept visuals, 185, 189,189 Zelazny, G., 169, 170, 173, 200
explanatory images,189
good quantitative charts, 185,186
pseudo-3D charts, avoidance of, 185,186
spacial-flow opportunities,189

289
Index