Using the framework proposed in 1999 by Dave Snowden, when he was working for IBM Global Services, problems can be of four types (the nomenclature has changed over the years): simple, complicated, complex or chaotic.
Let's look at each type:
- Clear (or simple, or obvious) problems can be easily solved. It is possible to understand the cause-effect relationship or relationships at play, so what is recommended is to (1) understand the facts, (2) categorize, and then (3) respond using best practices. One example, among thousands, is that of a customer or user who doesn't pay what they owe by the due date. Once the problem has been detected by the organization, it has to proceed with the established practices to respond to it.
Two additional thoughts on this subject. One is that of course it is assumed that these practices - of solving simple problems - have already been properly discussed in the organization and the appropriate procedures have already been established. This is a first level of investment in the capacity of any organization. Simple problems must be anticipated and solutions pre-prepared.
Another reflection, quite different but equally relevant, is that sometimes organizational managers oversimplify problems, forcing simple ways of solving problems that are not simple. A similar situation can occur due to a climate of complacency in the organization - a certain laziness or "rame-rame" leads employees to trust that problems will be solved simply, applying what is known and what has always been done in the organization. In both cases, simple and familiar approaches are taken to problems that are not. This should be avoided at all costs, because if it isn't simple, the problem won't be solved and could be made worse.
"In both cases, simple and familiar approaches are taken to problems that are not. This should be avoided at all costs, because if it isn't simple, the problem won't be solved and could be made worse."
- Complicated problems, although they involve different components, which makes them complicated, can be solved. With the right technical knowledge, the cause-effect relationships can be understood, although it takes work and time, and there is no single right solution. Alternatives have to be weighed up and an informed choice made about the solution to be adopted. The answer lies in good practice, because there is no best practice.
Building a new factory or a new retirement home is a complicated challenge, but it is feasible. It has to mobilize technical knowledge from different areas, involve a survey of good practices and the consideration of the best options, duly substantiated, given the circumstances. But it can be done. The solutions are not simple, but they are known.
- Complex problems are difficult to define, the cause-effect relationships can only be known in retrospect, and there are no solutions in advance. Investigating, making sense and responding are the three phases of the recommended approach for this type of problem. Arriving at answers implies having the ability to deal with uncertainty, to adapt, to experiment with different strategies, to understand what works and what doesn't, and to be open to what emerges as possible suitable solutions.
A problem of this nature is reducing the effects of greenhouse gases in a way that is fair to everyone involved. In addition to the technical knowledge that solving the problem implies, and the political will, finding a fair way involves participation, sharing and consensus. Most social problems are of this nature. They begin by being difficult to understand, because they involve several dimensions and actors, and because the solutions often don't exist to be applied without more.
"Arriving at answers implies having the ability to deal with uncertainty, to adapt, to experiment with different strategies, to understand what works and what doesn't, and to be open to what emerges as possible suitable solutions."
- With chaotic problems, it is also impossible to understand the causes and effects, and they are so confusing that you can't wait for answers based on knowledge - the first thing you have to do is act. Therefore, what is recommended is to act to try to restore order, try to perceive points of stability, and respond in such a way as to turn chaos into something (only) complex.
An example of a chaotic problem is a humanitarian crisis, caused by natural or human disasters. It requires action to control the chaos. Action in the sense of sharing information and mobilizing resources. Only after some stability has been achieved is it possible to build responses that go beyond the emergency.
Solving complex problems (and chaotic problems) implies a form of organization other than the traditional hierarchy we are used to in most organizations. A form of organization that implies collaboration, exchange of information and knowledge, sharing of resources, flexibility and openness to what emerges as possible solutions, implies aligning the interests of the various stakeholders involved and negotiating consensus. It implies resilience and a lot of patience.
For all this to happen, individuals and organizations need to organize themselves into networks. Networking is something humanity has always done. But one thing is the social networks that everyone builds naturally throughout their lives. Another thing is networks that are intentionally created to solve problems. We can call them impact networks. I'll soon be publishing a new article on this type of network.
For now, let's make this note: not all problems are the same and the ways of responding are also different. That's why, first of all, we need to recognize what kind of problems we're facing, before embarking on solutions that don't correspond to the type of problem.
