Problem Solving and Systems (Part 2)

Understanding problems as parts of systems

In Part 1 on Problem Solving and Systems, I introduced the idea that most problems can be better understood by conceptualizing how they develop as the result of errors, faults, breakdowns, or unknowns in particular systems to which those problems can be associated.

A simple example will illustrate: A person develops flu-like symptoms. This development can become a personal problem (e.g., missing a day, falling behind on work, lost income) because it can present an obstacle to overcome - one of the traditional definitions of a problem. And indeed, there is an obvious solution - go to the doctor, get a diagnosis, get some medicine, get better.

But let us examine what is really going on with this “problem” as it relates to the bigger picture. The human body is made up of many systems and sub-systems. These systems include our immune system. Becoming sick with flu-like symptoms can indicate many different illnesses (or breakdowns in the system), even though it is likely that only a few causes are the culprit. Your “problem” (whether one regards becoming sick as the principal or secondary problem, as opposed to missing work) does not exist in isolation, is not an isolated event (unless a person has never been sick before), and could have several probable causes. Why? A person’s health is related to many different systems of varying complexity and scope.

Always look to the “bigger picture” when first confronting problems. Attempt to see them in their larger context. However, do not overanalyze or overestimate their size; instead, relate how your problem could be the result of some system failure.

While the above health example may at first seem obvious, the principle to absorb is critical:

Considering whether faulty or unknown system interactions may have created your problem can provide insights on how to solve it!

Root Cause Analysis and Systems

There are dozens of problem-solving methodologies, comprising hundreds of different techniques and strategies. Many of these share common features, but the approach varies. One such method that approaches problems from their base or fundamental level is Root Cause Analysis (RCA). It begins by looking at how a problem began: What caused the problem? Implicit here is the assumption that a problem did not develop in isolation or just appeared out of nowhere. A further assumption is that a problem’s cause can be traced backwards. But this backwards tracing, by the laws of cause and effect, points to “systemic” influence by outside forces. The problem is itself a system and a part of a larger system.

The benefit of utilizing RCA is that it establishes a foundation for understanding the problem at its core, and in many cases, as part of a system.

I will discuss more about the RCA method, both as it relates to problem solving and systems, in a future edition…but now, let us consider systems a little more in depth:

Systems Analysis

Analyzing problems from their root causes relates to a larger perspective that encompasses how to see problems "operationally" as components of systems. By doing this, a problem solver gains insight into how the problem interacts with both internal and external variables, in order to solve it more efficiently.

In almost all systems (formal or non-formal, physical or mental, material or symbolic), functional parts operate cohesively as a unit to produce a particular result. As stated earlier, systems are defined as the operation of a group of related parts, or units, performing some function(s) to (more often than not) produce some output (or goal). Whatever that system does, either implicitly or explicitly, some action is performed by its parts, either concurrently, or in sequence. Some systems are easy to describe and understand; some are simple in function; others are complex; and yet others are so unfathomably complicated that without certain specialized knowledge (and terminology), these systems are impenetrable to analysis.

One of the first few questions we should always ask when confronted with a problem is this: How is this problem part of a system, what functional parts are working, and how does that system operate? What part of that system may have "created" the problem? Does that system's output impact the problem? Does that system primarily define the problem? Is the problem developing a system of its own, interacting with other systems independently or in conjunction? 

System Failures

When a system fails because one part does not operate normally as expected, that system develops a problem (it does not work)! The solution to that problem rests upon whether that operational fault can be or repaired or replaced. For example, think of how a toxic co-worker (as part of an employee ecosystem keeping a company running smoothly) can affect an entire business operation. Can they be coached to avoid creating problems, or are they so toxic as to need to be replaced?

Additionally, an operational breakdown in one part of a system often leads to another, in a series of system faults or failures. Consider how your lungs, heart, and kidneys are operationally dependent and rely on each other to function properly. If one breaks down or does not operate normally, the other’s functionality is negatively impacted.

System Hierarchies

In general, most physical structures themselves are systems which are part of larger systems, up a hierarchy. When the functionality of a system becomes strained or broken, problems begin to occur, and if not addressed, will lead to bigger problems. That is why, to short-circuit this cascading failure, the SyPS method (see Part 1) is crucial to solving whole classes of problems. It is with this perspective that problems can be attacked by looking at the operations and functions of the systems to which they are attached or from which they evolved.

SIDE NOTE: I am going to use the word “function” below in three related, but separate ways: 1) to denote purpose 2) to denote interrelated operational processes 3) to describe the more traditional mathematical meaning of an input leading to a unique output. My usage as I use the word in different contexts should be relatively clear.

To use again the example of a car that will not start: In all but the most helpless cases (for a car at least), a (or some) solution exists that will bring the car back to operational normality (it starts). As the complexity of newer automobiles has increased, so too has the skill necessary to fix them. An automobile functions correctly based off hundreds, if not thousands, of either mechanical or electrical variables. Isolating the cause of a car’s problem can be complex for someone without the diagnostic tools and methods necessary for such work. To a professional car mechanic, this diagnosis will not be difficult in most cases. However, a car’s problem rarely exists in isolation, since the its output (running normally) relies on the correctly functioning input of the entire system. Of course, there are simple situations where swapping out a single part will solve the problem. The point is that a break in one sub-system may cause related failures in another, perhaps causing multiple problems.

Problems rarely exist in isolation, but rather as parts of systems.

The crucial idea here is that problems often develop, not in isolation, but in a related fashion to the operation of certain component(s) in which a part of a system fails to function properly or operate normally.

Another problem (pun intended) is that a system may not be completely understood, or that it misbehaves, or that it is inconsistent. Inconsistency may derive from two issues: 1) The system does not run/perform the same under different circumstances or conditions, such as time or load 2) The system can come to different results given the same exact inputs. Think of the behavior of people in general: It is often highly inconsistent even under pretty much the same circumstances and thus cause multiple problems in relationships. People often do not “function” well either under “operational” stress, which in turn will affect others and how they perform.

Systems, Operations, Functions, and Symbols

So, let us explore for a few moments the conclusion that most problems can be understood from a systemic, operational, or functional standpoint, even including personal problems. Why can personal problems be viewed as parts of a larger system? Because most personal problems can be represented not just as they appear in isolation to other circumstances or events, but also as part of a larger “system” that can be represented SYMBOLICALLY. This relation of systems to symbols to functions opens up many avenues of solutions to problems.

***In a future newsletter I will discuss the usefulness of translating problems to symbols, representing problems as functions, and solving problems symbolically***

Problem Solving Structures

Any system has structure. Structure implies order. Order can be inferred from the sequence of how those parts interact from the basic structure. Once a framework of a system can be established, it can be thought of in terms of parts that have functionality. Once those functional parts are understood, an operational goal can be determined or designed. In other words, 1. How is a system made and how is it organized? 2. What is it and what does it do? 3. How does it operate and how does it function? 4. What does it produce and for what purpose?

System Diagrams to Understand Problems Symbolically

Systems, because of their structure, can be diagrammed or symbolized. Almost any system, although it can be described verbally, takes on a much more compact form when represented symbolically. It then becomes easier to visualize and understand. If a problem arises in that system, referring to a diagram or the symbolic layout may help pinpoint the origin of fault. So too with personal problems.

Problems Rarely Just Pop Up or are Coincidences

While it is true that problems can seemingly “pop” out of nowhere or be a “genesis” that starts everything in motion, the law of cause and effect regulates most apparent randomness or coincidence. Almost everything can be traced back to an antecedent. Failure to see connections makes problem solving, indeed life, much more complicated.

After all, life is a time series of actions, reactions, functions, and operations. All life is a type of system, dependent on other systems for survival. Do not think so, or that it is a little too reductionist? Think about everything you do, either as an active or passive participant. It is all about actions and reactions. Biological life is a series of functions and operations among cells, and even deeper, interactions among atoms, electrons, particles, etc. Our universe, and all known physics, even consciousness itself, is a connected web of interacting systems. The ideas of quantum mechanics help solidify this idea from a physical science perspective, even quantum entanglement at a distance (‘“spooky interaction”). Similarly, religious beliefs offer understanding, connection, meaning, and significance to their followers based off a system of beliefs related to how the world was created and operates, how it is ordered and what matters. Human society has been built on a foundation and hierarchy of systems and their relationships. Seeing world events operating in isolation is limiting. Systems, as well as problems, are everywhere!

3 Main Principles:

1. Symbols can represent systems

2. Systems have functions that do things or operate

3. Broken, unknown, and incomplete operations create problems

A problem is nothing but an obstacle to a goal, however that goal may be defined. Functions and operations can be represented by symbols, rather than by just a verbal description. In fact, at some point, many complex operations become much simpler to work with when represented symbolically. The same is true with systems. Hence, the power of symbols appears as a tool, not only of system representation, but of problem solving itself.

Well, that concludes this newsletter. I realize there is a lot of material, but at the center are a few basic principles which I believe readers can apply to how they see problems in general.

In the next newsletter (Problems and Systems, Part 3), I will discuss some specific and useful applications of Systemic Problem Solving (SyPS). Finally, I will evaluate its utility in helping to solve problems of any kind.

Thank you for reading!

Happy Problem Solving!

Evan