Self-Imposed Constraints

When we're solving problems, we sometimes unintentionally impose constraints that make solving easy problems difficult and solving difficult problems impossible. Relaxing these constraints is rare because we so rarely recognize that the constraints are self-imposed. Sometimes we incorrectly regard these constraints as part of the original problem, and therefore not subject to alteration.

After changing these self-imposed constraints, problem solutions often become easier to find. Because the challenge is to recognize self-imposed constraints, it's helpful to have a handy checklist of the common forms they take. With checklist in hand we can inspect the problem definition and the associated solution constraints. When we find a constraint that's on this list, we can recognize it as a candidate for alteration or removal.

Here's a list of these patterns of self-imposed constraints. Maybe you can add more.

We can't revise the problem definition because it's complete and correct

In many cases the person or persons (the "problem-posers") who constructed the problem definition don't belong to the group charged with solving the problem (the "problem-solvers"). In these situations there's a tendency for the problem-solvers to accept the problem definition without questioning it. Sometimes this happens, in part, because the problem-posers outrank the problem-solvers politically, and the problem-solvers don't feel authorized to question the problem definition.

But until careful study begins, we can't be certain that the problem as posed actually has a solution. Or a solution might exist, but it isn't consistent with pertinent laws or regulations. Some problems have no solutions. Verify that what the problem-posers want is actually legal, that it conforms to the laws of Physics and Economics, and that it makes logical sense. You don't want to be engaged in a search for the cheapest way to turn marshmallows into gold.

That way isn't the best way

Suppose the problem-solvers have found an approach that seems to be workable. The approach has provided a path around all known obstacles. But someone has expressed a general feeling that there's a better way. This pattern can appear when solving problems of any scale, from World Hunger to the order of the items in a meeting agenda.

The odd We sometimes unintentionally impose
constraints that make easy problems
difficult and difficult problems impossiblething is that for most problems, the group's charter has no language that commands, "Find the best solution." But we search for the best solution anyway. That can be wasteful, because good enough often is good enough. Complex problems rarely have a "best" solution. See "Problem Defining and Problem Solving," Point Lookout for August 3, 2005, for more.

We can't afford (or have no time for) experimentation

Some problems have solutions that become evident only after we try a series of candidate solutions, either in real life or in simulation. But trials — even simulated trials — require resources. When those who control those resources refuse to provide them, finding acceptable solutions can be more difficult. That's life. But when we decide not to request the resources necessary for trial solutions, or when we don't even think of experimenting with trial solutions, or when we fail to make clear the full costs of parsimony, we're imposing an unnecessary constraint on our own problem-solving process.

Try some experiments as a way of exploring possibilities. Start by making simplifying assumptions that might not be justifiable in the real problem. Be careful. Experiments have a way of morphing into prototypes that then become the solutions. This happens, in part, because people want to recover the costs of the experiments. Before constructing the real solution, terminate all experiments. Start the real solution from a clean sheet.

The solution to this problem will be much (cleaner, cheaper, …) if we do X first

When the problem at hand (I'll call it P) is to enhance or build upon existing assets, a common pattern involves attending to those assets (the X referred to above) before solving P. While doing so might be wise if the problem solution is already in hand, it's a dubious strategy if the solution to P is understood only in broad outlines. Actually solving P frequently produces new information that can alter views about exactly what X entails.

Undertaking X first is risky, because it defers P. There's a high bar to meet whenever we defer one problem to address another. That pattern can repeat recursively: as we defer P to handle X, we then find a third problem Y that causes us to propose deferring X until we deal with Y, and so on. If tackling X before solving P really is a good idea, then it's worth doing on its own merits. Consider putting X in the queue as backlog to be cleared after the work on P is completed. In other words, take on some technical debt (X) until the more immediate issue (P) is cleared. P might need some rework later, and that is a consideration, but do consider it.

Failed attempts are failed attempts; move on

When we try a candidate solution, and discover an insurmountable obstacle that renders it a failure, we can rule out that candidate. But there is usually value in understanding the details of the failure. Moving on without capturing that knowledge can be an expensive mistake. For example, a clear understanding of one failed candidate solution can be useful for adjusting other candidate solutions before studying them.

Design your solution attempts so that you can harvest value even from failure. If they succeed, fine. But if they fail, they should fail in ways that expand your knowledge and understanding of the problem. This means that you need to gather enough data along the way so that even if an approach fails, it helps you formulate new approaches, or suggests ways to modify other failed approaches.

Pictures don't lie: diagrams are complete and unbiased

Solving some problems entails constructing and interpreting graphic representations of concepts and relationships. When these representations are displayed on screens, paper, or whiteboards, they are inherently two-dimensional. That's fine for many situations, but if higher dimensionality is needed, these graphical representations can only be approximations, and approximations can be misleading. Sizes and placement of representations of elements of the problem can convey biases that affect how we understand the problem and how we formulate solutions.

The biases that arise from the inherent limitations of two-dimensional diagrams are outside our awareness. That's one reason why intentionally removing the biases can be so difficult. One approach that helps in some cases is redrawing the graphical representations in different ways, perhaps by different people. Scramble the diagrams. New insights might result.

Wait! There's more!

The problem-solvers found a solution to what the problem-posers asked for. But as they were implementing it, they realized something they could add (call it X) with what seemed to be just a bit more work. And that additional capability would surprise and delight everyone. The problem-posers weren't actually asking for X, but the problem-solvers were certain that they would be pleased.

If the additional work really is just a "bit," then of course, just do it. But that case is rare indeed. Almost always, the additional work is a budget buster.

Solving the more general case

The problem-solvers found a solution to what the problem-posers asked for. But as they were implementing it, they realized that their solution (call it X) was just a special case of a large class of problems for which they believe they have the general solution (call it X'). They believed that X' wasn't much more work than X, and that having X' in hand would surprise and delight everyone. The problem-posers weren't actually asking for X', but the problem-solvers were certain that they would be pleased.

This is another example of the actual implementation turning out to be far more work than it first seemed. Almost always, this is another budget buster.

Over time, solving many problems, you'll occasionally have "a-hah" moments when you suddenly realize how to solve the problem at hand. When that happens, ask yourself, "What was I assuming that prevented me from seeing this until now?" If you find an answer to that question, and it turns out to be a self-imposed constraint of a kind not included in this list, add it to your own list. And send me a note. I'd like to expand my collection.  Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Problem Solving and Creativity:

Bonuses

How we deal with adversity can make the difference between happiness and something else. And how we deal with adversity depends on how we see it.

Annoyance to Asset

Unsolicited contributions to the work of one element of a large organization, by people from another, are often annoying to the recipients. Sometimes the contributors then feel rebuffed, insulted, or frustrated. Toxic conflict can follow. We probably can't halt the flow of contributions, but we can convert it from a liability to a valuable asset.

Group Problem-Solving Tangles

When teams solve problems together, discussions of proposed solutions usually focus on combinations of what the solution will do, how much it will cost, how long it will take, and much more. Disentangling these threads can make discussions much more effective.

Virtual Brainstorming: II

When virtual teams must brainstorm, they try to do so virtually. But brainstorming isn't just another meeting. There's a real risk that virtual brainstorms might produce inadequate results. Here's Part II of some suggestions for reducing the risk.

Start Anywhere

Group problem-solving sessions sometimes focus on where to begin, even when what we know about the problem is insufficient for making such decisions. In some cases, preliminary exploration of almost any aspect of the problem can be more helpful than debating what to explore.

See also Problem Solving and Creativity and Problem Solving and Creativity for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 23: On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: I

In most organizations, most of the time, the plans we make run into little obstacles. When that happens, we find workarounds. We adapt. We flex. We innovate. But there are times when whatever fix we try, in whatever way we replan, we just can't make it work. We're working in a plan-hostile environment. Available here and by RSS on April 23.

And on April 30: On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: II

When we finally execute plans, we encounter obstacles. So we find workarounds or adjust the plans. But there are times when nothing we try gets us back on track. When this happens for nearly every plan, we might be working in a plan-hostile environment. Available here and by RSS on April 30.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenfHlRlTgqCIXkUHBTner@ChacrEuHRQPYVKkOucGfoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info