The KaiZone

Improving the business of life

Why You Should Jump to Solutions

by 1 Comment

Fail. Shcool. Order is important in Lean thinking.

Is Order Important?

Dsteipe waht rasreech form Carbgmdie Uinretvisy may laed you to bleevie . . . we learn at a very young age that order is important.   First we crawl, then we walk, then we run.  Ready, Set . . . wait for it . . . Go!   I before e (except after c, but that’s neither here nor there).    In life, when we do things in the wrong order, the results can be downright disastrous – at least if you are an unsuspecting trombone player.

By definition (literally), processes are governed by the rules of order:

Definition of a Process

In the Lean world, improvement is a process, which means that the order of steps when solving a problem is critical, right?  Isn’t that why we follow Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA)?  Lean thinking requires that we first identify the problem or opportunity.  Next, we understand the root cause.  Only then do we even begin to think about solutions.  In fact, according to Mark Graban’s Lean Blog, bucking of the established order represents the two biggest errors we make when solving problems.

If all of this seems obvious to you, I’m going to warn you in advance.  The following statement contains controversial advice and may not be suitable for all Lean practitioners:  When solving problems, I deliberately choose not follow the established order.  In fact, I start by jumping right to solutions.  And you should, too!

What is the Value that Lean Thinking Adds?

As I’ve previously established, Lean thinking is a cognitively demanding effort that consumes a large amount of our available budget of energy.  Furthermore, it takes a significant investment of time to thoroughly break down a problem and to drill down to root cause, instead of jumping into action.  Despite the substantial upfront outlay of time and energy required, we willingly pay the cost because we believe it will be returned in the form of more effective and more efficient problem solving.

Each and every PDCA cycle presents the opportunity to learn on two different levels.  When we attempt to solve a problem, we can learn both about the problem itself, and also about the methods we use.  For the vast majority of problems, we dedicate most of our effort to the former and very little time to consider the latter.  In time and with plenty of practice, Lean thinking becomes second nature to us.  Eventually, we cease to ever question the process.  We take it at face value and it simply becomes what we do and how we think.  The value-add is a given.  But, is it truly?  How do you know?  What proof do you have?  If we never turn an inquisitive eye towards the process of Lean thinking, can we really be certain that the ends justify the means?

The best way I see to truly understand the value-add of the Lean problem solving process is to treat each problem as scientific evaluation of the methodology itself.  Consequently, by stating the proposed solutions prior to the application of Lean thinking, we create a control for the experiment that allows us to test whether or not the rigors of the PDCA cycle contribute significantly to the outcomes of our problem solving efforts.  Therefore, I start by jumping to solutions precisely to show the folly of jumping to solutions.  I start in the Act phase, to demonstrate that we should first Plan, Do and Check.  I break the established order to prove that problem solving is a process of thinking in which the order contributes greatly to the outcomes.

So, What Are the Outcomes?

For the last five years, I’ve started nearly every single project, workshop and kaizen event with the same question:

If we were to take action based only upon what we know right now, what would we do?

I note the response and never speak of it again until after the PDCA cycle has yielded the final action plan.  After the application of Lean thinking, we reflect on the actions that were proposed at the beginning of the initiative; in that moment, the effects of Lean thinking are placed in to sharp relief, becoming apparent to all.  In the last 5 years, I’ve asked teams and individuals to jump to solutions on over 50 occasions.  Lean thinking has resulted in significant changes to the originally proposed course of action in more than 75% of opportunities.

To put that into context, consider that the pre-PDCA actions were not contributed by individuals with little knowledge about the problem or process.  These were deliberately constructed teams of individuals, selected specifically because of their subject matter and process expertise.  These were people with years of collective experience, most of whom worked directly with the processes of interest on a daily basis.  Despite the massive breadth and depth of knowledge within the teams involved, Lean thinking drove significantly different outcomes in more than 75% of problems investigated! 

What Can We Learn from the Other 25%?

It should not come as a surprise that, for a finite number of instances, the actions required to counter a problem were well understood prior to the use of the PDCA methodology.  When taken together, these instances share a critical few commonalities which provide great insight into how they were able to be well-understood without the deliberate application of Lean thinking.

  • The problems were observable to the human eye.
  • There was little distance in time or space between the observation of the problem (symptom detection) and the cause of the problem.
  • The environment in which the problems occurred was repeatable and predictable.

Collectively, these three characteristics do not cast doubt on the value that Lean thinking provides, but rather the management of the organization.  Think of it this way: if a problem is readily observable, with a cause that provides timely feedback all within a highly repeatable and predictable environment, why hasn’t it already been solved?  In these cases, Lean thinking is still the correct answer, but to a very different and much more fundamental question for the organization.

Why Should You Jump to Solutions?

Five years of research has proven to me, unequivocally, that the process of Lean thinking adds value.  Many would view my study as a failure; five years of effort to prove something that was already widely accepted as fact seems like a less-than-successful outcome.  However, the question for me was not one of yes (the thinking adds value) vs. no (the thinking does not add value), but to what extent.

Changing the way people think is difficult and stressful work, but it is necessary for Lean thinking to truly transform an organization.  When I am facing resistance from the targets of a change, or when I publicly challenge the mandates of a well-respected leader, or when I’m perceived as a roadblock to a team that just wants to take action, I need to believe in the strength of my convictions beyond a shadow of a doubt.  That is why I jump to solutions.  Because I believe fully in the power and in the value of Lean thinking.  And you should, too.

 

Problem Solving and Your Deceptive Mind: Part 3

by 1 Comment

Braing Drawing

In the first two parts of our discussion, we established how our brains lie to us and why there is very little that we can do to prevent it.  In the context of problem solving, overcoming the effects of our heuristics requires us to be aware of our propensity to err, and to engage the brain in deeper levels of thinking.  Go and See is a mentally demanding activity that helps us to overcome some, but not all of our cognitive biases.  In part three, we’ll continue the development of the Go See DaT technique and will discuss how the simple acts of drawing and teaching can guard us against the negative effects of our intuitive thought processes.

Step 2 of the Go See DaT Technique: Draw a Diagnostic

Going and seeing alone does not guarantee that we have thoroughly grasped the current condition.  Because we struggle to recognize when our brains are lying to us, it’s important to validate what we see to ensure that our assessment is accurate and complete.  How?  The first step is to put down on paper the understanding that we would otherwise keep only in our minds.  While it sounds simplistic, drawing is a powerful way to test our understanding, especially at the detailed-level.  Skeptical?  Try it for yourself.

Take a minute to visualize the outline of the United States of America (or your country of origin if you live outside of the U.S.).  To make it easier, we’ll consider only the lower 48 states.  Hopefully, this is an image with which you are familiar and have seen countless times before.  Note that in your mind, you likely have an easy time generating a relatively clear image.  Now, take another minute, and in as much detail as you can, draw the picture that is currently in your head.  Compare your results here.  Sure, you remember the big picture; anyone would likely be able to tell what you were trying to draw.  But, how did you do on the details?  Did you remember the Puget Sound?  San Francisco Bay?  The Outer Banks of North Carolina?  What about Long Island or the Delmarva Peninsula? Perhaps Florida is sticking out a few hundred miles too far into the Atlantic Ocean?  See a pattern?  Drawing tests the depths of our understanding by exposing us to the details we tend to overlook.

Numerous studies and researchers (see here and here for examples) have demonstrated that drawing significantly enhances the extent to which we learn, although there is still debate on exactly how the enhancement works.  A leading hypothesis suggests that drawing forces us to make the details of our knowledge explicit, thereby exposing both our tacit knowledge – knowledge that is difficult to communicate in words, like explaining to someone else how to whistle – or where there are gaps in our understanding.  In other words, drawing forces us to activate deeper regions of the brain that differentiate between what we don’t know that we know and what we just don’t know.

Drawing of the current state may take on multiple forms, such as graphs, charts, maps, schematics, or sketches.  Although the A3 format provides a universal canvas on which to sketch the current state – as well as the other phases of the problem solving cycle – there is often confusion about what exactly to draw.  The main point to remember is that problem solving is a process, and that the output of one step in the process should serve as an input into the next step.  In other words, draw the current state in a way that helps to diagnose the causes of the problems that are observed.  What exactly the right visual is depends on the specific problem we are attempting to solve; however common examples to start with include material and information flow diagrams (a.k.a, value stream maps), standardized work charts, or customer journey maps.

Step 3 of the Go See DaT Technique:  Teach to Others

Social interaction is perhaps the most cognitively demanding activity in which we routinely engage.  During the course of even a very simple conversation, our brains perform a wide variety of complex tasks including:

  • comprehending what is being said
  • analyzing voices for tone and inflection
  • reading body language and facial expressions
  • monitoring adherence to social norms of behavior
  • suppressing and expressing emotional responses

And all of this occurs before we have said a single word in response!  When we interact with others, the number and complexity of mental processes require that we engage nearly every region within our brains, which can be both a blessing and a curse.  The difficulty of social interaction has likely resulted in quite a number of awkward moments in our lives.   However, in the context of problem solving, we can rely on the increase in mental activity produced by socialization as the ultimate validation of our grasp on the current condition.

When we teach others, we strengthen our own understanding in a number of ways.  The act of explaining exposes the gaps in our knowledge, and helps us to understand what we do know at a deeper level; the examples we provide, the questions we answer and the connections we make to our existing knowledge all help to develop a fuller understanding of the information.  Teaching also requires that we organize our understanding in a coherent and consistent way, exposing our underlying assumptions and the holes in our logic.  But most importantly, socializing the information creates additional perspectives from which to base our understanding.

As was demonstrated previously, when our perspectives change, what we see can be altered dramatically.  Relying only on our own perspective is like viewing the world with one eye closed.  We lack the depth of understanding for which we cannot compensate without incorporating the third dimension; that is to say, without adding additional perspective.  Linking to others’ points of view brings different sets of assumptions, expectations and contexts together, yielding a more complete picture and a deeper level of understanding.  Simply find another with a fresh perspective and an open mind, grab your drawing and go the gemba together with the goal of walking away with a single, unified view of the current condition.  It is quite possible that no other single action in the realm of problem solving can generate such a great return for such a small price.

Putting It All Together

The human brain is quite possibly the single most complex and advanced object in our world.  But despite all of its truly remarkable capabilities, in many ways our mental processes have not advanced beyond our innate instincts for survival.  Thinking deeply requires us to expend large quantities of energy, and so we default to the use of mental shortcuts to reduce the cerebral load.  Although these shortcuts significantly increase the speed at which we are able to decide, the penalty is that we are prone to significant errors in judgment.

Overcoming our cognitive biases is easy in principal, but requires us to recognize those situations in which we are likely to react based on incomplete information, fail to adequately test our understanding or infer causal relationships where none exist.  In these situations, we must simply acknowledge that we are likely to err and take the steps necessary to engage the energy-demanding parts of our brain that are responsible for deeper thinking.  The Go See DaT technique provides a practical, flexible and effective approach with which to initiate the problem solving process.  The well-established practice of Go and See provides a solid foundation on which to build our assessment of the current state, but additional effort is needed to validate the depth of our understanding.  By drawing a diagnostic of the problem and by teaching what we have learned to others, we put the whole of our mental capabilities to use in forming an accurate, holistic and three-dimensional grasp on the current condition.

Although the 10% myth has been busted by science, what remains true is that our remarkable brains have nearly endless potential to solve problems, and by extension, to improve our world.  Recognize that the power to put the other 90% to use is just a matter of accepting our flaws and taking deliberate action to challenge our thinking and to broaden our perspective.  More simply, all we need to do is just Go See DaT.

 

 

Problem Solving and Your Deceptive Mind: Part 2

by 2 Comments

The human eye seeing the world as it actually it.

In part one of this three-part series, we established a very powerful – and, to some, even slightly disturbing – premise about the human condition:  the world is not necessarily how we perceive it to be.  In part two, we’ll look deeper into the underlying biological factors that cause our cognitive biases.  We’ll conclude by exploring how the traditional practice of Go and See helps us to overcome some, but not all, of our errors in judgment.  In doing so, we will introduce the Go See DaT technique, which builds on the concept of Go and See to create a simple and practical approach for validating our grasp on the current condition.

The 10% Myth

It’s a commonly-held belief that we humans use only 10% of our brains.  It’s an attractive notion, isn’t it?  It suggests that we have an ability to tap in to a huge well of unrealized cognitive potential if we simply engage the other 90%.  The problem is that scientific research has proven the 10% myth to be just that . . . a myth.   Recent advances in brain imaging techniques allow scientists to visualize and identify specific regions within the brain that are active while performing various cognitive tasks.  If we look at the sum total of our brain activity that is required over the course of a given day, it’s likely that we make use of all 100% of our brain – either consciously or subconsciously – at one point or another.  However, it is important to note that the 10% myth is also not entirely untrue.  Although we need – and put to use – each and every part of our brains, that does not mean that all 100% is active 100% of the time.

The brain regions that are recruited to perform a task vary greatly depending on the type and difficulty of the thinking required.  For example, mentally demanding tasks, like learning a new skill or attempting to multi-task, produce more activity in more regions of the brain than relatively passive tasks, like listening to music or watching television.  The increased activity, however, does not come without a price:  thinking consumes energy, and lots of it.

Despite accounting for only 3% of the body’s mass, the brain is responsible for more than 20% of the body’s total energy demand.  The more brain activity that is required for a task, the more energy that is consumed.  Thus, we have developed a set of pre-programmed mental shortcuts, called heuristics, to limit the energy brain-drain while still enabling us to react quickly to our changing environments.  The consequence, however, is that our intuitive patterns of thought do not recruit the regions of the brain responsible for deeper thinking, leaving us prone to the types of errors discussed part one.  In this sense, we hold ourselves beholden to the 10% myth.  Overcoming our cognitive biases during the problem solving process, therefore, requires that we deliberately take the steps necessary to engage the regions of our brains that constitute the other 90%.

Because our natural tendency is to avoid deep thought, we must deliberately place ourselves in situations that engage deeper regions of our brains when grasping the current condition.  The following steps provide a practical approach to maximizing cognitive activity that builds upon the traditional practice of Go and See, which we will call the Go See DaT – Draw and Teach – technique.

Step 1 of the Go See DaT Technique:  Go and See

By itself, the traditional Go and See approach provides a solid foundation for assessing the current condition.  Because as much as half of the human brain is involved in processing visual information, going and seeing is a cognitively intensive function that engages many regions of the brain.  However, without the proper precautions to avoid our cognitive biases, what we see may not match the actual situation on the gemba.  Always remember the following:

  • Go with an open mind.  As we touched upon in part one, we are quick to make up our minds and tend to seek out only information that confirms our views.  However, when we ignore all other possibilities, we approach the problem from a very narrow perspective.  To better understand how limited we are by a narrow point of view, click here.  Our perspective affects what we see to an astonishing extent. Broadening our field of view requires that we go to the point of origin with a perspective to learn, not to confirm.  We must forget our preconceived notions and assume that we know very little about the problem at hand.  Assess the situation based only on the factual information that is available, i.e. what can be directly observed or measured.  Test the depth of understanding by assessing all of the factual information that is available, giving equal consideration to both supporting and refuting evidence.
  • See, don’t remember.   Our brains have a limited ability to recall detailed information from memory.  Research shows that, even for simple or familiar objects, we can only recall a finite number of the associated details.  Our brains are designed for storage efficiency and tend to overlook detailed information in favor of seeing the bigger picture.  Because, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details, when we rely on memory to grasp the current condition, we tend to define the scope of our problems much too broadly (at best) or define the wrong problem completely (at worst).  Sound familiar?

To improve our grasp of the details in the current condition, we can take a page out of the playbook or Mr. Taiichi Ohno, father of the Toyota Production System, and practice standing in the circle.  See the process first-hand and directly observe the signs and symptoms of the problem.  Break the process into multiple pieces to observe, if necessary.  Use simple data collection techniques to record where, when or how often symptoms occur.  Watch multiple iterations of the process, each time focusing in on the problem in greater detail.  Continue until you have narrowed the problem down to the smallest possible scope.

In part three, we’ll continue the development of the Go See DaT technique and will discuss how the simple acts of drawing and teaching can guard us against the negative effects of our intuitive thought processes.

 

Resistance? Think Like Judoka

by 1 Comment

Judoka, Jidoka, resistance, Lean, kaizen, KaiZone

Originally published at The Lean Post

Cue the music. “That will never work, because…”

These words are the chorus line in the Battle Hymn of the Status Quo. Although the verse that follows varies across time and place, that chorus is universal. These six words echo throughout every shop floor, conference room, laboratory, and back office where change is afoot. It’s a rallying cry that unites the masses in resistance.

We in the Lean world, however, HATE this tune. Resistance in an organization can be a daunting foe to even the most highly skilled of Lean practitioners because of its ability to bring the change process to a screeching halt. However, we can convert resistance from a roadblock into a positive source of energy and engagement if we remember to think like the judoka.

No, it’s not a typo. In Lean world, most of us are familiar with the concept of jidoka (and if you’re not, please start your learning journey here. Most of us, however, have never before heard the word judoka, and you certainly cannot find it in the Lean Lexicon.

So, what is judoka, you ask? The question is not what, but who. A judoka is a practitioner of the martial art – and Olympic sport – of judo. The origins of judo can be traced to a man named Jigoro Kano who founded the first judo school and dojo in Tokyo, Japan in 1882. Mr. Kano named his art judo, meaning “The Gentle Way” based on his philosophy of exerting maximum effectiveness through minimal effort in both sport and in life. Put into practice, this philosophy sets judo apart from other martial arts and makes the discipline uniquely effective in encountering resistance from an opponent.

Rather than meeting an attack with opposing force, the judoka uses the opponent’s own momentum against them to gain the advantage. For example, if a judoka senses a push from an opponent, he/she does not push back; the judoka will pull with the opponent to take the adversary off-balance. With the opponent’s momentum now captured, he/she can apply a myriad of techniques to generate favorable leverage with minimal exertion of his or her own effort. This is the result. The techniques used in judo, which employ this strategy of non-resistance, are particularly effective against larger and more powerful opposition. Physical disadvantages are not of major concern because they use the size and power of their opponent as their own. The more resistance that the opponent is able to generate, the greater the potential advantage.

So, next time you are faced with resistance to change, put the techniques of the judoka to work for you by doing the following:

  • Identify the Initial Signs of Resistance.  Be prepared to react at the first signs of resistance. If given sufficient time to fester, a small pocket of negative perception can spread rapidly throughout an organization. Moreover, resistance is difficult to identify, especially in the beginning phases of the change process, because the vast majority of resistance is not expressed openly. Shigeo Shingo estimated that as much as “95% of objection is cautionary.” Become familiar with the leading indicators of resistance and ensure that there are open lines of communication in which the targets of the change feel safe to voice their fears and opinions
  • Avoid Pushing Back.  Our struggles in driving change originate from the way we tend to think about resistance, which is evident in the language we use. We fight resistance. We do battle against the resistance. It’s a force that we must overcome, surmount, mitigate, defeat and/or conquer in order to ensure that the change process marches on. In other words, we attempt to match the force of resistance by mustering an equal and opposite force of our own. The problem with fighting against resistance in an organization is that we severely underestimate the opponent. Resistance to change stems from a natural and powerful psychological response that spreads rapidly through individuals within an organization. As Lean practitioners attempting to fight resistance, our approach is simply not effective against a bigger and stronger opponent. Rather than push back against the resistance, seek to pull energy from the collective and powerful fears, passions and emotions of those resisting.
  • Capture the Momentum of the Opposition.  Engage the most vocal and outspoken targets of the change to participate directly in the change process. How? Instead of reacting to, “that will never work, because . . . “, ask that the statement be reframed in the form of, “that would only work if . . .” This subtle change produces an entirely different dialogue around the proposed change. The former phrasing is destructive with a verse that attempts to derail the change process. The latter,is highly constructive because it encourages team members to identify the critical few problems that need to be solved to make the proposed idea work. Even better, the person resisting is usually also the first one to highlight problems, so he/she can be engaged in the problem solving process and recruited to help develop the solutions.

I see so many parallels between the worlds of Lean and judo. In practice, both disciplines have developed effective strategies that deliver maximum impact (or value) through minimum effort (or cost). But could it be that the reason for the widespread success of each is the same greater purpose that both seek to fulfill? In Lean circles, we preach “respect for people” in all things, while Jigoro Kano founded judo under the belief that “all things connected with it should be directed to its ultimate object, the benefit of humanity”. Perhaps regardless of our struggles, resistance or otherwise, if we can remember to act out of respect for and with benefit to humanity, we will find success.

 

Problem Solving and Your Deceptive Mind: Part 1

by 2 Comments

Escher in Lean Problem Solving

 

Problem solving may be the single capability most critical to the success of the Lean organization.    Whether you call it PDCA/PDSA, DMAIC, scientific thinking, or otherwise, problem solving is the heartbeat that pumps life into the continuous improvement effort.  However, if we are to recruit everybody, every day, it’s important that we understand the factors that impede our abilities to solve problems effectively.  There has been extensive discussion in the Lean annals of the underlying complex philosophical, managerial and social inhibitors of improvement efforts.  All the while, a much more basic and fundamental piece of the puzzle has gone relatively unexplored: our human brains.

In this three-part article, we will take an in-depth look at the ways in which our human brains, specifically our intuitive patterns of thought, impede our ability to solve problems effectively.  In part one, we will explore three common biases in our innate patterns of thought that give us a distorted view of the world and inhibit our ability to accurately grasp the current condition when investigating a problem.  In the subsequent two parts, we’ll develop a practical process for overcoming these cognitive biases that builds off of the go and see approach to recruit underutilized portions of the brain into the problem solving process.

Go and see.  Genchi genbutsu, if you are so inclined.  It’s such a simple concept that it’s amazing that we have to spend so much time imploring its importance.  To grasp the current condition, simply go and see the process.  Do it well enough, and the problem will practically solve itself.  Sounds easy, right?  Wrong.  Grasping the current condition is about separating truth from fiction.  It’s about distilling the probable out of the plausible.  It’s about the gemba – the real place – where the real facts must be determined.  But, what is real?  It’s not a rhetorical question.

The human brain does not perceive the world as it is, but rather as it might be.  Our success as a species has been due in part to our brain’s ability to rapidly assess a situation based on limited and incomplete information for the ultimate purpose of ensuring our survival.  Our view of the world is the one that keeps us safe, which is not necessarily the one that makes us correct.  To our brains, it’s acceptable that the rustling in the tall grass behind us wasn’t really a saber-tooth tiger ready to pounce as long as we live to flea another day.  Grasping the current condition seems much more difficult when you consider that at any given moment of your life, it is highly likely that your brain is lying to you.

Luckily, researchers in a wide variety of fields like psychology, neurobiology and behavioral economics have identified very specific patterns of thought which may lead to our self-deception.  Although we can’t prevent our brains from subjecting us to these mental illusions, we can improve our perception of the world by being aware of how and when we are likely to fall victim to their effects.  Based on the pioneering works of Nobel Prize winning researcher and author Daniel Kahneman, below are three common cognitive biases to which we fall victim when seeking to grasp the current condition.

  • WYSIATI.  No, it’s not some strange language and it’s not science-speak.  It’s an acronym that stands for What You See Is All There Is.  An important factor in our survival as a species is our brains’ ability to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.  Because our survival once depended on it, speed trumps fidelity on the cognitive priority list, and this bias is still the mental norm whether or not we are dealing with matters of life and death.  The resulting problems that this causes are two-fold.  First, we believe that what we see (or can recall from memory) is truly all that there is; if we do not see it (or cannot recall it), it might as well not exist to us.  Second, we are generally unaware of the quality and quantity of the information our brains have used to form an impression.  That is to say, our subconscious mind will compel us to jump to conclusions rapidly without first considering the extent to which we have accurately surmised the situation.
  • Confirmation Bias.  When our brain jumps to a conclusion, we automatically assume that the assessment of the world that led to the decision was perfect.  Consequently, when evaluating the decision after the fact, we tend to seek evidence that will support our decisions, while discounting (or even ignoring) evidence which refutes our understanding.  Even more, we also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence in a way that favors our positions.  In other words, when our minds are made up, we are quick to validate our thinking without challenging the strength or accuracy of our stance.  Our intuitive approach runs counter to scientific thinking in which both supporting and falsifying evidence are sought in order to either confirm or refute a hypothesis
  • Implied Causality.  An important factor in our survival was the ability to very quickly determine the causes of the events in the world around us; we jumped to conclusions about causality very readily in order to keep ourselves safe.  However, in a problem solving environment, this approach leaves us prone to several different types of errors in judgment.  We often imply causality, where there is only correlation or coincidence.  Hence, why we believe that playing classical music to babies will make them smarter.  Another unfortunate outcome of this bias is that we tend to assign cause to random events; in the absence of relevant statistical information, we are very keen on seeing patterns and assigning causes to our world where no such patterns exist.

If we take these three biases into account, a common pattern emerges that inhibits our ability to accurately grasp the current condition during the problem solving process.  First, we subconsciously form an assessment of the situation based on limited and incomplete information from the world around us.  Then, we quickly look for information that will substantiate our conclusions, while ignoring or discounting any evidence to the contrary.  Finally, we infer a causal relationship to explain our understanding, often when only correlative or random relationships are present.  The result is a poor understanding of our problems and the inability to achieve the desired pace of improvement.

In part two, we’ll continue our discussion of cognitive biases, taking a step back to understand the underlying biological causes of the flaws in our thinking.  In doing so, we’ll introduce the Go See DaT technique, a method for grasping the current condition that builds on the traditional Go and See approach to protect us against the effects of our cognitive biases.