# "Out with it"

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/out-with-it/261>\
**Category:** CSG1997\
**Created:** [October 22, 1997, 9:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/out-with-it/261 "1997-10-22T21:10:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/f/9de053/32.png) [@Fred\_Nickols3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Fred_Nickols3)\
**Post date:** [October 22, 1997, 9:10pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/out-with-it/261/1 "1997-10-22T21:10:44Z")

</div>

[From Fred Nickols (971022.1702 EDT)]

> Bruce Gregory (971021.2045) EDT) in response to Fred Nickols (102197.1800)

Fred:

> I've not chimed in on the generic problem solving discussion because I  
> noted the initial reference to Polya and to teaching math problems.

\<snip\>

BruceG:

> You may understand PCT, but you've got a lot to learn about CSGNet.  
> Discussions "center" on whatever you feel like saying. So out with it 🙂

Okay; here goes... \>:-( \<---- Howzzat for a grumpy face?

I consider a problem to be a situation requiring action and in which the  
action to take is not immediately apparent. In short, a problem requires of  
you that you figure out what to do (which is why one writer called problem  
solving "What you do when you don't know what to do"). Figuring out what to  
do is only part of solving a problem; it's what I call the investigation  
phase. To actually solve a problem, you have to do something, you have to  
intervene. Ordinarily, we call this "implementing the solution." I call it  
the intervention phase.

Said a little differently, to solve a problem you have to change things.  
Enter now the complex nature of the situations in which I most often find  
myself charged with intervening; namely, the workplace. Organizations,  
processes, functions, markets, and all the other "stuff" associated with the  
workplace are labels for some pretty complex situations. Yet, it is these  
situations in which we intervene to as to solve problems, especially those  
known as "business problems." In these kinds of situations, change is  
indirect; that is, you don't change it (e.g., profit), you change something  
else and "it" changes as a result.

Given that change is necessary, and given also that change is frequently  
indirect (at least in complex systems and situations), it is useful to think  
of two points or places in the structure of the situation being  
contemplated. The first is the Point of Intervention, and the second is the  
Point of Evaluation. In simpler language, where will you intervene, and  
where will you gauge the success of your intervention? These two "points"  
are connected by way of the structure of the situation in which a problem  
may be said to be embedded.

So, to solve a problem (or at least the kinds of problems I'm generally  
saddled with solving), you first identify where and how you will determine  
that the problem has been solved. These are the Points of Evaluation (POE).  
Next, you try to define/draw/diagram the structure of the situation in which  
those Points of Evaluation are embedded. Then, you go looking for places in  
that structure where you can intervene and see the direct and immediate  
effects of your intervention. These, of course, are the Points of  
Intervention (POI). Thus it is that changes introduced at the Points of  
Intervention ripple outward through the structure of the situation, making  
themselves felt at the Points of Evaluation.

Generally speaking, I've found that there are only three basic kinds of  
structures with which I need to concern myself: financial, operational, and  
behavioral (the last, of course, giving rise to my interest in Fred Skinner  
and Bill Powers; or, more precisely, in operant conditioning, and in PCT).  
🙂

All this kind of comes together in a general problem solving approach that I  
call "Solution Engineering."

One of the interesting (to me) aspects of this is that Solution Engineering  
almost always requires working backward from the desired result (Point of  
Evaluation) to the means of achieving (action taken at the Point of  
Intervention). This flies in the face of a lot of research into solving  
math problems, which almost always finds that experts work forward from the  
problem to the solution and novices work backward from the solved state to  
the solution. I think what that research is really finding is that if the  
problem has a known solution, experts invoke it and novices try to figure it  
out. On the other hand, if you present experts with problems that have no  
known solutions, you make novices of them, and they, too, must work backward.

My point, then, is that many problems encountered in the workplace are, to  
the people who encounter them, novel problems, with no known solutions.  
They can, of course, cast about for people who know of solutions (these  
people are known as "experts"), or they can try to work things out  
themselves. If they choose or are forced to work things out themselves,  
they must engineer solutions to the problems they encounter. I think the  
process of figuring out what to do in novel situations can be taught.  
Hence, I also think once can successfully teach generic problem solving  
(although I don't think Polya had it quite "nailed").

There ya go, BruceG... 🙂

Regards,

Fred Nickols  
The Distance Consulting Company  
nickols@worldnet.att.net

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory9](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory9](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory9)\
**Post date:** [October 23, 1997, 2:44pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/out-with-it/261/2 "1997-10-23T14:44:07Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (971023.1045 EDT)]

Fred Nickols (971022.1702 EDT)]

> My point, then, is that many problems encountered in the workplace are, to  
> the people who encounter them, novel problems, with no known solutions.  
> They can, of course, cast about for people who know of solutions (these  
> people are known as "experts"), or they can try to work things out  
> themselves. If they choose or are forced to work things out themselves,  
> they must engineer solutions to the problems they encounter. I think the  
> process of figuring out what to do in novel situations can be taught.  
> Hence, I also think once can successfully teach generic problem solving  
> (although I don't think Polya had it quite "nailed").

Sounds reasonable to me. Especially if you view these problems  
as issues of control. The first questions might be "What am I  
perceiving?" and "What do I want to perceive?" This could  
initiate the process of working backward through the problem. It  
is important for workers to recognize that others in the  
workplace are trying to control different perceptions, so the  
search for solutions must take into account the likelihood of  
unintended consequences. How's that for generic?

Bruce