Currently viewing the tag: "Important and urgent problems"

The difference between what we have and what we want

It is good to remember that many times, just because some of us are solving a problem does not mean that we are solving the most important problem.

Our ability to create ideas is amazing but we are often faced with the difficulty of attributing meaning.

An idea is a purpose for an action whose meaning is closely connected with the definition of a problem, which can go from clarification of an aspect or situation to the solution of a delicate problem as the distribution of drinking water in areas of difficult access.

To solve a problem begins with the definition of the problem which is the most important part in the process of resolution, that is, to correctly identify the problem to be solved.

If we want to have creative ideas, we need not to invest heavily directly in ideas but in the understanding of the problem and from that understanding enunciating real challenges to our status quo. We need to leverage our capabilities!

The problem definition should not be seen as an individual act and requires the participation of a team eager for answers to questions that throws in thick and fast. Often what is called problem is nothing more than a consequence or a particular aspect of the problem because this is represented by a hidden or unexpected need.

My ideas will eventually be “good ideas” if in fact they fit into problem set.

If we want a clear identification of a problem it does not succeed without resorting to observation because this allows us to differentiate what is said from what really makes.

Often when we try to follow a given functional stream to identify any problem we do not find meaning in what we are told and once again the observation and systematic questions are enlightening. For example:

Why is it a problem?

Why has this happened?

This is really urgent?

In these circumstances the diversity inherent in a team observes and explores the environment where supposedly is a problem, facilitates cross-a vision that allows us to enjoy the various perspectives of understand the problem including their contextualization.

Meanwhile our idea has yet to wait to apply the resolution.

It is only truly valid when identifying the problem is finished and this is possible when what we say is what we think or want to say. The identification must be clear.

Have an idea, the better, have a fair amount of ideas often seem frustrating, because the momentum of the want to put into action is caught by the need for a clear definition of the problem.

But also for this reason the definition of the problem helps to refine our ideas, allowing for rapid deletion of proposals full of individualism, romanticism and failure, leveraging more environments conducive to our creativity. In most cases sooner is the failure faster is success because we don’t uses time looking for minor improvements.

A team that identifies a problem correctly became owner of a more comprehensive knowledge and problem-solving facilitator.

It is then that the good ideas appear but that are “good” only after evaluation. Only after we check that correspond to the interest of the organization, where they will be developed and that have the desired solution requirements, i.e., satisfying the needs of people linked to the problem, is that they come in.

Good ideas are good ideas only if they can get in action.

How much more interdisciplinary is a team better the result expected with a proposed solution. It is on the borders of several disciplines which often are high resolution potential solutions.

The way I see a problem may seem correct to me, but how a team sees a problem is certainly more appropriate to its resolution.

Do you want to comment?