Customer Reviews

Smart Thinking for Crazy Times: The Art of Solving the Right Problems

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Mitroff's book offers a refreshingly fast walkthrough of the complexity of problem-solving. Scorning the usual breathless introductions about how fast things change, Mitroff focuses hard on 5 ways we confound ourselves when trying to address problems with ourselves or with others. I found the first two sections, on how to formulate problems, and how we choose (the wrong) stakeholders highly illuminating. The exercises were significantly difficult and useful, because they required real-life application, they did not simulate it. A limited amount of philosophy on aspects of cognitive science and psychology made the work feel as grounded in academia as it feels in business and professional contexts.

In this book, Ian Mitroff attacks problem-solving by defining the first step: asking the right questions. He shows you how to use critical thinking skills to find the right problems, frame them correctly and implement appropriate solutions to solve or resolve them.

This book is thoughtful and well-organized, just as you might hope it would be since it teaches critical thinking. It is also well-written and well-illustrated, featuring numerous diagrams that illuminate better ways of thinking. Mitroff includes examples of well-known companies which have made major mistakes that cost millions of dollars because they failed to recognize the right problem in time. He also gives examples of companies that succeeded through improved critical thinking and problem identification. We [...] recommend this interesting book to all business problem-solvers.

The book's impact was made at the end of the first chapter. There I read Critical Questions and tried to answer them. These weren't questions about the material I had just read, but questions about me and my organization and how we deal with problems. Subsequently, the end of each chapter brought more questions to work on.

The book focuses on the problem solving process and the search for the real problem. Many management books solve predefined problems, which are good books, as long as you're sure you've picked the right problem.

The book is a quick read, interspersed with graphics that illustrates the text. Part 3 of the three part book delves into systematic thinking and touches on Jungian analysis, personality types, 5 Ways of Thinking, and even 12-Step programs.

As the saying goes, "Identifying a problem is half way to solving a problem." This book will help you find the right problem.

About the first 1/3 of this book is a good, if brief introduction to systems-based problem-solving. The book focuses on taking a broad view of all aspects of the problem, not on a highly-analytical breaking-down of a situation. This is fine, though not earth-shatteringly good or original. Unfortunately, the middle half of the book is an unfocused meandering about the contributions of Hollywood to violence in society, and then to the problems faced in managing nuclear weapons. The last part of the book has a fairly good discussion of the four basic Jungian personality types, and how personality type affects problem-solving. This is pretty good stuff, but it is about the length of a magazine article. Not a worthless book, but not a particularly good value for your money.

I ordered this book with great hopes. The author correctly states that superior thinking skills are the foundation of creating a lasting competitive advantage.

However, within the first few pages Mr. Mitroff uses an example of the Make-a-Wish Foundation's decision to grant a young man's wish to hunt Kodiak bear as an illustration of poor thinking skills in action. That's not the problem.

He then talks about all the flak that the Foundation got from animal-rights groups and other anti-hunting factions. That's not the problem.

Here's the problem:

Implicit in his analysis, is the assumption that this child's wish was immoral or otherwise unethical. The clear message was that, of course, the Make-a-Wish Foundation's decision to grant the wish was wrong and he then tars them with a "dumb-thinking" brush.

The author failed to state HIS underlying assumption that hunting is wrong and immoral, even though the hunt in question was perfectly legal. He then went so far as to suggest that the Foundation could have avoided all the fuss by re-defining the word "Hunt" from "Kill" to "Take a photograph". With a straight face, he suggests that this "compromise" would have satisfied all involved.

Of course this would have violated the entire concept of "make-a-wish-come-true"... the boy didn't wish for a photo safari; he wanted to kill a trophy bear. But this seemed to be small potatoes compared to ruffling someone's anti-hunting feathers.

In the interests of disclosure, I am a sometime hunter and see absolutely nothing wrong with the killing of animals for sport and sustenance, when done within the ethics of the sport. Further, I'm proud of the Foundation for "sticking to their guns" (so to speak).

In my mind, anyone who eats meat and is against hunting is a hypocrite. A cows life is no more or less precious to that cow than the bears life is to it. I've also been a farmer and raised animals for butchering.

To some, my objection may seem tangential to the meat of the book. But this instance of sloppy thinking is exactly what I had hoped to learn how to better avoid.

The two most basic precepts of discourse are to:

1: Define your terms

2: Disclose your underlying assumptions

In my mind, the author did neither and therefore lost all credibility to me.

Some better resources that I can recommend are

The Goal, Eli Goldratt
It's Not Luck, Eli Goldratt
Lateral Thinking, Edward DeBono