An apocryphal story:
A man you know is hungry. There are 4 ways you could solve his problem:
- Slap him about a bit. This will take his mind of it. Hunger gone, problem solved.
- Give him a fish to eat. Hunger gone, problem solved.
- Give him a fishing rod and show them how to fish. Hunger gone, problem solved.
- Develop a first world infrastructure with trawlers, freezers, distribution centres, corner stores and fish fingers. Hunger gone, problem solved.
Id love to claim credit for this line of thinking
But it came from a gentleman called Russell Ackoff. He called the 4 methods
- Absolve
- Resolve
- Solve
- Dissolve
His point was that the further you take your problem solving the more likely you will make the problem go away for ever.
There is an extra twist:
Absolving and Resolving don’t count as solving the problem. I’m sure you would agree.
Solving, though valid, involves current knowledge. If there is a known solution you shouldn’t have to waste your time on it.
As a manager — a paid problem solver — only Dissolving problems is a worthwhile use of your time.
How did you spend your time today?
If you enjoyed this post click here to have the next delivered straight to your inbox.
Watch another opinion
Image by Nigel
Hi James,
I get the reasoning and I agree with it but am not sure about the example……..Don’t you think that ‘Develop a first world infrastructure’ has, in fact, only solved the hunger problem in the short to medium term but that it’s development has caused a number of other problems around over-fishing and sustainability of food supplies etc ? Therefore, has it actually dissolved the problem or has it dissolved that one only to create another one down the road?
Adrian
I think you make a very good point Adrian. The word we live in is immensely complicated. Solving one problem invariably causes another one.
Unfortunately I’m not sure of the answer to that.