People as solutions to problems

By Duncan Anderson. To see all blogs click here.

Summary:

• 1. Project outcome = 2. Existing solution + 3. Ability of people to make new solutions

• A viable solution to a problem is ‘a person who can solve the problem’. 

• Problem + Person who can solve the problem = No problem :) 

Overview:

• You have a problem to solve, and you want a 100% chance of a good outcome. What can a solution be? 

  • The solution can come from a good “2. Existing solution”, or from someone capable of solving the problem, or a combination of both. 

  • To repeat, if you have a person who can solve the problem in time you have; then you have a solution.

  • For example: I might have a large problem. But Jeremy says he is on it. Therefore I do not have a problem anymore. 

• In graphical form:

That is, the better the existing solution, the less need there is for the ability of people to make new solutions

• The worse the existing solution, the more need there is for the ability of people to make new solutions

Jingle: the best solution is a person… because the best people can solve any problem :) 

Another lens:

• To build a business you need lots of different skills. People often talk about figuring out what skills you need and then hiring people to fill the skill you need. 

  • Chess analogy: if you are playing a game of Chess you might be missing a Rook. Therefore look to hire a ‘Rook’ to fill out your team so you can solve a problem. 

• While this is one solution, IMO another viable solution is to build (upgrade) people to have the skills you need. 

  • Chess analogy: the ultimate goal is that you build ‘Queens’, ie pieces that can do all moves. 

  • You want to be able to take a Pawn and build / upgrade them into a Queen… or you want to be able to upgrade yourself into a Queen so you can do all moves! 

• A Queen is someone who can be given any problem and solve it! 

If you are given responsibility to solve a problem from time to time you’ll need to ask for help. Help taxonomy:

• The best people: Ask for help when help is needed (there is correct diagnosis that a problem that needs addressing)

• The next: Ask for help when help wasn’t actually needed (ie have ‘cried wolf’)

• The worst: don’t ask for help

• Comment: don’t be worried about responsibility, don’t be worried about being out of your depth, be worried about not asking for help when you need it. Vulnerability is not a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of self awareness!

+++++++++++++

Details:

1. Project outcome = 2. Existing problem solution + 3. Ability of people to make new solutions 

• 2. Existing problem solution = 2.1 view on if the solution is above sufficiency or not * 2.2 how confident you are that the solution is above sufficiency or not

  • 2.2 how confident you are that the solution is above sufficiency or not = percentage of problem space understanding

• Basically, over time your ability to know the problem space should go up. 

• This comes from experience working in the problem space and seeing how other problems within the space are solved

• Let’s say you have never built a textbook before, therefore most of the problem space has never been explored before. 

• However, let’s say you have built a textbook before and you plan to build another one that is 90%+ the same. If you built the previous textbook above quality and speed sufficiency you can have high confidence that using the same process (ie solution to a problem space) for the new textbook should be above sufficiency. 

• 3. Ability of people solving problem to make new solutions = 3.1 size of problem + 3.2 People capability

  • 3.1 Size of problem 

    • Large vs Medium vs Small problems

      • Large - if you don’t fix a Large you will either not 1. have the project done above sufficient quality OR 2. have the project done on time

        • Insufficient quality example 1 = has dealbreakers such as factual errors

        • Insufficient quality example 2 = does not have agreed upon dealmakers like quality answers

      • Medium - not fixing medium will mean you get the project done on time and above sufficient quality BUT will have significant unnecessary pain in delivery. 

        • Example 1 = a motivation issue from the creation process that if left unchecked will eventually cause someone to leave

      • Small - nice to fix but not doing so will not affect anyone. 

  • 3.2 People capability taxonomy:

    • L1: can see Large problems 

    • L2: can see Large problems and fixes after the problem has occurred 

    • L3: can see Large problems and can prevent the problem  from occurring (don’t get good at solving problems, get good at not having problems)

    • L4: can see Medium problems

    • L5: can see Medium problems and fixes after the problem has occurred 

    • L6: can see Medium problems and can prevent the problem from occurring

    • L7: can see Small problems

    • L8: can see Small problems and fixes after the problem has occurred 

    • L9: can see Small problems and can prevent the problem from occurring

  • What level of people capacity is needed? Well that depends on what a person is responsible for!

  • Ie. not everyone has the responsibility of needing to be able to see and prevent large problems

  • Question for discussion: What level of capacity is needed from you in different contexts? 

For any Solution there should be sign off for what level of ‘2. Existing Solution (machine)’ is needed and what level of ‘3. Ability of People’ is needed

• Context: 

  • Sometimes the sign off is 100% people related. Eg if Jeremy says he has something I don’t need to check, I’m just like fark yeah, nothing to worry about here :)! 

  • It’s possible it the solution can be 100% Existing solution (machine) if the machine is built for 1. Self regulation, 2. Self improvement and 3. Self replication. 

  • However it is normally some combination of ‘2. Existing Solution (Machine)’ and ‘3. Ability of people’. 

• Supporting people to increase their ability to solve problems: 

  • Theory: 

    • Continuum 1: Reportability ⇔ Responsibility

    • Continuum 2: Rule ⇔ Principle

      • Rule = no interpretation required, follow 100% the letter of the rule. 

      • Principle = interpretation required.

  • Implementation:

    • If a product is 100% standardised (eg a pen, a car) then you can create a solution that works on 100% Reportability and Rules. 

    • However if you create a product that has commonality but each unit also has specificity (ie is different on some levels) (eg a lesson in a textbook, eg whether to invest in a startup) then you can create solution that has Principles and Responsibility. 

      • Bad Principles and no Responsibility < no systems < Good Principles and Responsibility

      • IMO done well Principles and Responsibility mean a much better outcome and more enjoyment than ‘pure intuition’ AKA no systems. 

  • Example: 

    • For something like making a textbook there will always be new unforeseen things that show up. So while the ‘1. Existing Solution’ might have worked well in the past that doesn’t guarantee it will work well in the future. 

    • As such you should have Principles, Systems (a machine) and people looking after and upgrading the Principles and Systems (ie Responsibility). 

    • IMO the minimum responsibility for this is “L1: can see Large problems”.  IE any reasons we won’t 1. have the project done above sufficient quality OR 2. have the project done on time

    • I don’t think it matters if you can’t see a solution to a Large problem, please just sing out ‘I would like some help here’. However not being able to see Larges means no responsibility can be given. 

Increasing people’s ability to problem solve = 1. Asking for help + 2.taking responsibility 

• 1. Ask for help when you need help, ask for help when you are unsure if you need help, just don’t ]not ask for help if you are unsure! 

  • That is, when in doubt, ask for help. 

  • Help taxonomy:

    • The best people: Ask for help when help is needed (there is correct diagnosis that a problem that needs addressing)

    • The next: Ask for help when help wasn’t actually needed (ie have ‘cried wolf’)

    • The worst: don’t ask for help

• 2. Responsibility:

• If you want to help make the world better IMO you’ll need to be able to deliver something, AKA take responsibility for getting something done. IMO if you can’t take responsibility then you can’t be relied upon to deliver something and therefore can’t make the world better. 

• As such, taking responsibility is one of the best things ever :). 

• However “No responsibility = bad”, “Too much responsibility = bad.”

• To enjoy responsibility IMO you need to get good at: 

  • 1. Finding and solving problems, and 

  • 2. Being comfortable asking for help! No one sees everything, everyone needs help from time to time. 

• Comment:

  • Some deliverables are ‘mission critical’. Eg having no dealbreakers in a textbook or not having the agreed upon dealmakers. 

  • In the case of ‘mission critical’ deliverables IT IS better to be safe than sorry.

  • For a ‘mission critical’ deliverable no one will ever get in trouble for ‘asking for help unnecessarily’ (ie crying wolf)...

  • … but not asking for help when there could be a ‘Large Problem’ is a HUGE problem! 

Onwards & upwards :)!