Defining Problems

Two wilderness hikers chanced upon a fierce grizzly bear. One of them pulled his running shoes from his pack and rapidly laced them up. His companion yelled in astonishment, “Are you crazy? You can’t outrun a bear.” His reply as he took off down the trail, “I don’t have to outrun the bear. All I have to do is outrun you.”

Defining the real problem. A difficult task!

There are a number of different perspectives on the definition and nature of problems, as well as different types of problems. Here is a brief overview of some of the classic ones.

Problems as Goals
One general definition describes a problem in terms of some difficult obstacle or goal. According to this definition, anything difficult to overcome is a problem. Although this definition is descriptive, it is not precise enough for most purposes. Most challenging situations present more than a goal to overcome and, instead, involve a series of processes to apply and evaluate.

Deviation from the Standard
Kepner and Tregoe’s (1981) classic definition of a problem is “a deviation from an expected standard of performance.” This definition is more descriptive for general use. If you need to determine the cause of a problem, then this is an excellent definition. Day-to-day idea generation, however, is not especially concerned with problem causes. Although determining causes may be important as part of the overall creative problem-solving process, such determinations are not useful for pure idea generation. Kepner and Tregoe’s definition is essentially convergent in that problem solvers attempt to converge on a cause by eliminating various alternative explanations. Idea generation, in contrast, is more divergent—problem solvers attempt to generate many different alternatives. In the case of idea generation, however, alternatives are solutions and not explanations. Because the idea generation activities in this book are divergent, Kepner and Tregoe’s definition doesn’t fit.

A Gap Between the Real and the Ideal
MacCrimmon and Taylor (1976) propose another definition that is more appropriate for our purposes and has remained a standard over the years. They define a problem as a gap between a current and a desired state of affairs—that is, a gap between where you are and where you would like to be. An example might be when you are dissatisfied with the brand position of one of your products and wish the product were more competitive. If you perceive things that way, you have a problem. If you are unaware of your competitive position or there is nothing you can do about it, however, then perhaps you don’t have a problem. The same would apply to any other type of organization as well. It’s all relative.

Tackling the Challenge
Most problems also involve some uncertainty and present a challenge. They can be trouble, right here in River City. You want to do something about them, but you don’t know exactly what. The type of problem you face will determine how to resolve it. For instance, if your car runs out of gas, you have a problem. The solution in this case is relatively simple: put in more gas. Any other solution would be a waste of time (unless gas was not available). You don’t need to spend a lot of energy and effort being creative unnecessarily. Organizations continually are faced with similar challenges at all levels involving perceptions of gaps between current and desired situations. Upper management typically must provide leadership on how to move the organization to achieve its vision and negotiate relationships with external constituencies; middle management must continually help allocate desired resources efficiently and effectively (desired goals); and lower management must help employees understand why they are being asked to close gaps (that is, help other organizational members deal with their seemingly unending challenges). However, as shown by the gasoline example, not all organizational challenges require creativity. There are and always will be routine procedures designed to tackle the majority of problems. The secret is to know when you need to be creative and when to fall back on routine procedures. To do this, it is important to figure out what type of problem or challenge faces you.

What Type of Problem Do You Have?
Most problems can be categorized according to how much structure they possess. For instance, if your problem is well-structured, you would have a clear idea of how to solve it. You would know your current state, the desired state, and how to close the gap. The previous problem, running out of gas, is clearly a well-structured problem. In a manufacturing organization, the work days lost to injuries would be another example IF you know how many days are lost for a time period, how many days should be lost (a realistic goal), and how to reduce that gap. If you don’t know with certainty how to reduce this gap, then the problem would be more “fuzzy” or ill-structured. Ill-structured problems provide relatively little guidance or structure on how to solve them. An example would be a problem of generating new product ideas. In this case, there are many possible options but no clear-cut way to proceed (that is, no way that will guarantee a new product home run). Or a nonprofit organization might have an ill-structured problem of how to recruit more volunteers. The type of problem will determine the approach to use. In general, you should hope that all of your problems are well-structured. According to Nobel Prize winner Herbert Simon, the goal of all problem solving is to make problems well-structured. Such problems are the easiest to solve, because you can use a routine response. Fuzzy problems with less structure require creative responses. For these problems, you must devise custom-made responses that require more time and effort. This book provides activities to help with problems that aren’t well-structured.