REPLY Getting a Good Problem Statement (SD6570)

[SDMAIL Ken Lloyd]

Posted by  "Ken Lloyd" <kalloyd at wattsys.com>

Bill,

In the history detailed by the following discussion, you seem to be
describing problematic attractors without addressing them.  See my
intervening comments.


>> Posted by  Bill Braun <bbraun at hlthsys.com>
>> 
>> Jean-Jaque Lauble poses some follow-up questions.
>> 
>>> > Sounds good too. But is group modeling enough to avoid the risk of 
>>> > loosing the support of people who control the resources or fail to be 
>>> > implemented?


Is the situation (left undescribed) the fact that people who control the
resources were not included in the model context?  More specifically, when
you refer to group modeling - what stakeholders constituted the group? 
Was the intelligence of the modeler(s) substituted for the intelligence of
the group (and what stakeholders made up the group)?

>> 
>> Good point; I think group modeling is necessary and may not 
>> be sufficient. 
>> There is much good literature on securing champions and 
>> sponsors for projects, so I will not expand on that here.
>> 
>
>>> > It seems to me that the brilliant solutions failed because the 
>>> > conditions exposed in the first paragraph were not met.
>>> > Was it the case?


In order to validate separation of the intelligence of the modeler from the
group intelligence in the problem statement (which I contend is a model set,
in that it represents a probabilistic structure representing a-priori
information and knowledge that is believed true, but uncertain, therefore
unknown.  Thus, the only way to refine the superposition of probabilities in
the problem set is to simulate the models from two weak AI directions.  One
is evolution from a primitive state.  The second is the level of success of
the model in a more sophisticated trained state. 


>> Yes, I failed to anticipate how "downstream" stakeholders 
>> would receive the proposed solutions in the absence of 
>> "upstream" engagement. This and your first point I think are 
>> deeply connected.
>> 
>
>>> > <Finally, resist "how" questions. Such questions assume at
>>> >
>>> > I am not sure of having fully understood this.
>>> > It should mean that generally people do not have the solution.


Is this a result of a modeling error, a conceptual error (inadequacy of
understanding the temporal domain), or an error in the modeling tool, being
unable to represent the ensembles during dynamic progression?  Or did it
stem from sensitivity to the initial condition of a measurement error?

>> I am drawing a distinction between asking a question as 
>> though the answer is not known, and actually not having it. I 
>> opine that "how" questions are often a dodge for doing 
>> better/tougher thinking.


I'm not sure I understand the above statement.  My interpretation is that
the prior statement represents a question model (a question whose presumed
answers are believed to be true, but uncertain) compared to the latter (a
question of unknown probability or possibility).  The former can be tested
to its level of uncertainty, the latter (computationally much more complex)
to random variables (equiprobable microcanonical ensembles).  Or did you
mean another.

>> Simple example: How should we design our web site?


In the mereological relationship between strategies and tactics, how can you
tell if the technical know-how is missing without a distribution of
strategic scenarios?  How can strategic scenarios be developed without
modeling the dynamic context of the questions from ontology of the
stakeholder group?

Here, I suppose the unstated answer often is "I'll take a SWAG, based upon
my experience", hence the intelligence in the modeling "expert" is
substituted (magically) for the intelligence of the stakeholder group.


>> If the technical know-how is missing, finding the technical 
>> know-how is a good step. If that question takes the place of, 
>> "what questions are at the heart of designing a web site?" 
>> then the "how?" question defers deeper questions that if 
>> explored could lead to deeper insights. The "how?" question 
>> expresses the belief that "what works?" is the defining 
>> question and as such is a driving force in the identity of 
>> the manager. So, "get stuff done" wins out over, "who are our 
>> stakeholders, and what really matters to them?".
>> 
>> This is not an invitation to endlessly wander; I am mindful 
>> of moving forward. 
>> I cannot help but wonder, with all the effort that has gone 
>> into solutions, why in the nearly 250 years since the 
>> beginning of the industrial revolution and the formation of 
>> the concept of "organization", we don't run our organization 
>> better than we do? Seems like enough time to get it right.


Sounds like stochastic evolution rather than survival of the fittest to me.


>> Jay asks why we cannot design organizations to fail at 
>> roughly the same rate as chemical plants? So, why can't we, 
>> with all the attention given to solutions? We've been 
>> collecting the answer to "how" for years and entire forests 
>> have died to put them into print. What would other questions, 
>> design to get at what really matters, reveal to us?
>> 
>> Thank you for the questions, Jean-Jaque.


Bill, and thanks to you for your insight.  This is important stuff!

Posted by  "Ken Lloyd" <kalloyd at wattsys.com>
posting date  Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:03:12 -0600