4 ms·

This is highy logical and so very sensible. It would be intersting to see the converse in its failure version for comparison.

dredmorbius 5y ago
That's the way I originally wrote it. Please read the Reddit link above. - Deny there's a problem. This is distressingly popular. - Identify the wrong type of problem. Again, quite common. - Identify the wrong cause of the problem. Where the causal chain is complex, or there are multiple candidates, and/or direct observation or measurement are difficult (geology, infectious disease until the 20th century, mental health, software, networking equipment), again this is quite easy. Where expertise is limited, one specific failure mode I've identified is moralising deviancy, failure, or pathology. Medicine ran through this for nearly 2,000 years. Mental health is still somewhat there (especially in nonclinical institutional responses, but also among the general public, and to a certain extent even clinicians). I'd argue that crime and poverty are very much here. - Define the wrong objective. If you're marching off in the wrong direction, you might or might not get there, but it won't help you. The classic literal case is someone "lost in the woods" heading away from what would otherwise be nearby shelter or rescue. E.g., a failure to know the terrain intimately is a huge handicap. This applies in metaphorical senses as well. - Apply the wrong redress (method / process for "getting there from here"). Very common especially in systemic cases where feedback loops aren't well understood. Where a rents-based good or service (land, healthcare, education) is increasing in price, financial support to consumers only exacerbates the price increase. Want to cap real estate, rental, interest, healthcare, or educational expenses? Tax the supply side. (Land Value Tax / LVT, and equivalents.) Direct emergency support for short-term remedies may be indicated, but that is not a systemic solution. - Fail in communicating / recruiting others to assist. This can be either a communications failure on your part, or failure of those to whom you're communicating to respond, generally a recapitulation of the above steps. Another frequent problem is in reaching out to those who actually benefit by and/or want to prolong the problem, or who are for various reasons simply incapable of comprehending the problem or solutions. If the pilot's incapacitated and you need someone to fly the plane, you find the one damned pilot on board, you don't attempt to aviate by committee with the entire passenger manifest. - Fail in executing the remediation. Again, multiple possible mechanisms: lack of ability, skill, expertise, insufficient resources, or simply an overwhelming problem. - Assessment failures. This isn't as obvious but might include: "declaring victory and walking away", as has been popular in military misadventures. False attribution of success, or spontaneous resolution might also occur. The failure here is less for the present problem but in having learnt the wrong lessons for future problems.
- fuzzfactor 5y ago
  Equally logical and very well worded. I would say for decision makers handling a serious problem or trying to avoid one, a review of both of these checklists in some form would be a good exercise to help them grasp where on the spectrum they stand at the time.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Thanks. I've found a few similar lists: - Aviation Threat & Error Management: identify, assess, act, monitor. - OODA: Observe, orient, decide, act. - Problem Management (IT): Detection, logging, prioritization, diagnosis & analysis, known errors, review. - Tom Hicks: 7-stage Problem Solving: 1. Identify issues 2. Understand parties & interests. 3. List possible solutions 4. Evaluate options 5. Select option(s). 6. Document agreement. 7. Agree on contingencies, monitoring, & evaluation - "Grey Problem": a problem where the causing factor is unknown or unconfirmed. - ITIL: Information tecvhnology infrastructure library.

dredmorbius 5y ago

That's the way I originally wrote it. Please read the Reddit link above. - Deny there's a problem. This is distressingly popular. - Identify the wrong type of problem. Again, quite common. - Identify the wrong cause of the problem. Where the causal chain is complex, or there are multiple candidates, and/or direct observation or measurement are difficult (geology, infectious disease until the 20th century, mental health, software, networking equipment), again this is quite easy. Where expertise is limited, one specific failure mode I've identified is moralising deviancy, failure, or pathology. Medicine ran through this for nearly 2,000 years. Mental health is still somewhat there (especially in nonclinical institutional responses, but also among the general public, and to a certain extent even clinicians). I'd argue that crime and poverty are very much here. - Define the wrong objective. If you're marching off in the wrong direction, you might or might not get there, but it won't help you. The classic literal case is someone "lost in the woods" heading away from what would otherwise be nearby shelter or rescue. E.g., a failure to know the terrain intimately is a huge handicap. This applies in metaphorical senses as well. - Apply the wrong redress (method / process for "getting there from here"). Very common especially in systemic cases where feedback loops aren't well understood. Where a rents-based good or service (land, healthcare, education) is increasing in price, financial support to consumers only exacerbates the price increase. Want to cap real estate, rental, interest, healthcare, or educational expenses? Tax the supply side. (Land Value Tax / LVT, and equivalents.) Direct emergency support for short-term remedies may be indicated, but that is not a systemic solution. - Fail in communicating / recruiting others to assist. This can be either a communications failure on your part, or failure of those to whom you're communicating to respond, generally a recapitulation of the above steps. Another frequent problem is in reaching out to those who actually benefit by and/or want to prolong the problem, or who are for various reasons simply incapable of comprehending the problem or solutions. If the pilot's incapacitated and you need someone to fly the plane, you find the one damned pilot on board, you don't attempt to aviate by committee with the entire passenger manifest. - Fail in executing the remediation. Again, multiple possible mechanisms: lack of ability, skill, expertise, insufficient resources, or simply an overwhelming problem. - Assessment failures. This isn't as obvious but might include: "declaring victory and walking away", as has been popular in military misadventures. False attribution of success, or spontaneous resolution might also occur. The failure here is less for the present problem but in having learnt the wrong lessons for future problems.

fuzzfactor 5y ago
Equally logical and very well worded. I would say for decision makers handling a serious problem or trying to avoid one, a review of both of these checklists in some form would be a good exercise to help them grasp where on the spectrum they stand at the time.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Thanks. I've found a few similar lists: - Aviation Threat & Error Management: identify, assess, act, monitor. - OODA: Observe, orient, decide, act. - Problem Management (IT): Detection, logging, prioritization, diagnosis & analysis, known errors, review. - Tom Hicks: 7-stage Problem Solving: 1. Identify issues 2. Understand parties & interests. 3. List possible solutions 4. Evaluate options 5. Select option(s). 6. Document agreement. 7. Agree on contingencies, monitoring, & evaluation - "Grey Problem": a problem where the causing factor is unknown or unconfirmed. - ITIL: Information tecvhnology infrastructure library.