The KaiZone

Improving the business of life

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.

 

 

Leanable Moment #1: Taking Its Toll

by 3 Comments

Leanable Moment 1

Leanable Moments take you inside my home life to show you how I apply Lean thinking to real-world problems.  Each Leanable Moment is presented in A3 format – simply click the image to enlarge – and includes discussion focusing on the finer points of the problem solving process – the type of things they don’t necessarily teach you in Lean training!  Each discussion will conclude with a summary of key lessons learned, going beyond the boundaries of just one problem to take the waste out of life.

The Current Condition

For us road warriors, the EZ-Pass is a borderline necessity.  My 68-mile commute would be that much more unbearable having to stop and wait in line for 5 minutes to pay the toll on my way to and from work.  Not to mention, there’s a slight discount – about 20% – for using the EZ-Pass over paying in cash; 400+ trips a year and those pennies really add up!

That being said, when I drive to work without my EZ-Pass – which I do a lot! – it’s a big inconvenience for me.  The problem starts when I remove the EZ-Pass from my work car – of course it’s a Toyota! – and use it when we go on trips in the family car that require tolls.  In the last year, I have not remembered one single time to put the EZ-Pass back in my work car before driving to work the following morning.

To solve the problem, I first needed to define exactly what the problem is, which is where the discussion gets interesting.  From experience, I know that how a problem is initially framed has an enormous impact on the options that are considered for addressing the problem later on in the problem solving process.  In this case, there are two ways that this problem can be framed:

  1. The problem is that I forget the EZ-Pass in the family car.
  2. The problem is that I drive to work without the EZ-Pass in my work car.

Take a minute to think how you would frame the problem at this point.  Why did you make that choice?

I chose to go with the latter option, driving to work without the EZ-Pass, because that is when I feel the “pain”.  It does not necessarily inconvenience me to leave the EZ-Pass in the family car; I could always remember to grab it at a later time.  I feel the pain when I drive to work without it and I have to stop and pay the tolls!  We’ll see later how the framing of the problem becomes a very important factor how the problem is eventually addressed.

The Target Condition

Note the simplicity of the goal statement.  We have a tendency to over-think our goal statements.  In this case, I simply want to make sure that every time I drive to work, I have my EZ-Pass in my work car.

Cause Analysis

The next step in the problem solving process is to understand why the problem is occurring.  I used a root cause map and drilled down to deeper levels of understanding by using the 5-whys technique (my favorite tool in the Lean toolbox).

  • Why #1:  Why do I drive to work without the EZ-Pass?  Two reasons.  Obviously, one reason is that I leave the EZ-Pass in the family car.  However, the second reason is not-so-obvious and I likely would not have noticed it without practicing Go and See by sitting in the car:  the EZ-Pass is installed behind the rear-view mirror and is not visible to me when I sit in the driver’s seat.  Therefore, I cannot see that it’s missing when I start driving.  Note that this location is a safety measure – doesn’t obstruct your view while driving – and cannot be changed.
  • Why #2: Why do I leave the EZ-Pass in the family car?  Three factors all contribute to my forgetfulness.  First, similar to above, I can’t see the EZ-Pass in the family car and therefore, don’t notice that it’s still in the car.  Second, when we arrive home, our first priority is to usher our three young kids in the house because we don’t want them running out into the street*.   The third factor relates to how habits are formed.  Obviously, I am not in the habit of remembering the EZ-Pass.  In Charles Duhigg’s book The Power of Habit, he establishes that the habit loop consists of three components:   a cue that triggers a routine which generates a reward (or consequence).  In the case of the EZ-Pass, my habit loop is broken in that there is nothing that triggers the desired routine (re-installing the EZ-Pass in my work car).

* Side note, why do they call it herding cats?  In my experience, herding toddlers is much more difficult!

  • Why #3: Why do I not have a trigger to remember the EZ-Pass?  I once had a mentor that claimed there were only three root causes to any problem:  there either is no standard, the standard is not being met, or the standard is not good enough.  In this case, I simply have no standard process for exiting the family car, other than attempting to herd the children safely into the house.  I stopped asking why at this point because doing so does not add new information.  The best plan of attack is to create a standard process for exiting the vehicle that triggers me to take the EZ-Pass with me before driving to work.

Countermeasures

The first and most obvious countermeasure would be to simply get a second EZ-Pass dedicated to the family car.  However, that option would require me to open up a second account in which I would have to maintain a cash balance above a designated amount.  Doing so would be akin to following conventional management thinking:  when there’s a problem, just throw more money at it.  I’m not about to go there.

Next I brainstormed ways to create the trigger that would remind me to take the EZ-Pass.  I came up with three potential triggers:

  • Place a reminder on the door handle of the family car reminding me to take the EZ-Pass before exiting the vehicle.
  • When removing the EZ-Pass from my work car, tilt the rear view mirror down towards the floor.  Only put the mirror back in the proper position when the EZ-Pass has been re-installed in the work car.
  • When installing the EZ-Pass in the family car, place the keys to my work car in the family car.  As long as the EZ-pass remains in the family car, so do the keys.

I eliminated the first option immediately.  I’m not a big fan of reminders because I can choose to ignore them, and over time, our natural tendency is to simply stop noticing them altogether.  I liked the second and third options because the triggers are clear and I could not ignore them – think poka yoke.  However, the third option is preferable to the second because the trigger comes sooner.  In the second option, the trigger would not come until I was ready to back down my driveway on the way to work.  In the third option, I get the trigger before I ever walk out the front door . . . hey, where are my keys????

At this point, however, I want to revisit the framing of the problem statement.  Note that the proposed countermeasure would not prevent recurrence of the problem if it would have been framed around leaving the keys in the family SUV.  I still would have left the keys in the family car.  However, because the problem was framed around the actual event that was causing me pain – driving to work without the keys – there are more, effective countermeasures available.

Standardize

After standardizing the process for transitioning the EZ-Pass between the two cars, I monitored the problem to make sure the actions worked.  Three family trips so far and I’ve returned my EZ-Pass to my work car each and every time.  Simple problem solved (so far) with zero cost, and I get over an hour of time back with my family every year.

Lessons Learned

  1. Solve the right problem!  Take the time to define – write it down! –  the problem that you are trying to solve and frame it so that it focuses on the actual pain that you are experiencing.
  2. When trying to affect behaviors, remember the habit loop.  Don’t focus solely on the actions you want to occur.  Driving the right behaviors also requires that the right triggers and the right rewards (or consequences) are in place.  In the absence of any one of the three elements, the habit is never established.

In next week’s Leanable Moment, we will discuss how to turn kids into Lean thinking problem solvers!

Did you solve a problem that you would like to contribute to Leanable Moments?  Simply use the Contact the KaiZone link at the top of the page and tell me about it!

 

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.

 

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.