Addressing problems is part of life – but is it worth thinking about how we do it? Do we, for instance, apply a quick automatic approach and opt instinctively for the first apparently credible solution which occurs to us – or do we start by consciously trying to understand the problem and then looking for the options which might help to solve it? asks Professor Simon Bridge

In his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman describes two main ways of thinking: one which operates automatically and quickly, with little or no effort and another which does actually allocate attention to activities which need it. So do we often instructively opt for the first simple solution we think of?. Of course it depends on the problem, but going straight to the apparently obvious solution frequently works. At home, if a room is dark we turn the light on and if light doesn’t come on when the switch is pressed, then usually changing the bulb will resolve the problem. But this instinctive approach isn’t appropriate for every occasion, especially when the issue is novel and/or complex.

For instance it is very easy in a medical situation to think that there is an obvious remedy for a given set of symptoms – so we look for the medicine which worked last time. However there is an established procedure for a doctor dealing with a patient. In its simplest form it is first examine the symptoms, and look for any which may not be obvious, next try to diagnose what might be causing them and then prescribe an appropriate cure (or cures) for that cause. So a doctor shouldn’t opt straightaway for a popular or fashionable cure even if that is what the patient wants

Addressing problems

The medical analysis is helpful and its initial stages, those of symptoms and diagnosis, are about first understanding the problem. Instead of taking the obvious signs as definitive and going straight to a solution, they are part of trying to ascertain, from the evidence available, what is the underlying issue. Of course sometimes in medicine, where the issue is not a new one, there is an obvious cure for a problem, once it is diagnosed – but with a new problem that might not be the case.

So, in those circumstances it could be necessary to examine the problem, to see what the options are and to decide which of those would appear to be best.

Also sometimes it is not possible to work out in advance what will work and how much analysis is appropriate – so trying apparently likely solutions may be the best option.

Actually, in the case of the faulty light, trying a new bulb is the first stage of the diagnosis because it will show if failure of the bulb was the cause, and not something else like a blown fuse. But usually we don’t look at it in that way and just go straight to thinking that changing the bulb is the obvious solution.

Therefore, where a proper assessment would appear to be necessary or merited, the first stage must be to try to understand the problem before beginning to build solutions. As has been observed: ‘the first thing in science is to face the facts – making sense of them has to come second’.

If you want to solve or manage a problem you need to define it – so the first question is not what is the answer, but what is the problem?

Therefore I suggest that the process of addressing problems might have four stages something like this:

First being clear about what you are actually trying to achieve.
Then ascertaining what are the key relevant aspects of the situation – things which might help to indicate the cause of the problem and/or indicate options or help to decide between them?
Next what are the options? Identifying options not only helps your analysis but can also be useful when persuading others to accept or support it – because if people are presented with just one suggestion the tendency is to look for others, but if offered a selection they are more likely to accept the recommended one.
Finally choose between the possible and/or practical options by deciding which, on balance, seems to be the best – and being prepared to change that decision if the selected option eventually appears not to work.

Of course a full assessment is not needed for many problems but not doing it when it is necessary is likely to be worse that doing it when it isn’t needed? But how often is that analysis process followed – or is it much more usual, even when supposedly tackling a complex problem, not to examine the problem in any great depth but to opt quickly for the apparently obvious, the usual and/or the popular solution?

And it would seem that often many of those in government are no exception. For instance what was the nature of the problem to which Brexit was supposed to be the solution. Also what is the cause of the regional disparities for which ‘levelling up’ is offered as the solution – or are they both little more than hopeful slogans?