
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The same question "why?" about some phenomenon in reality can have 2 very different types of answers: (i) the proposal of a causal explanation and (ii) the justification of the truth of the phenomenon
An explanation is a consistent mental model of a transformation/ task/ change, and it contains:
Epistemology is relevant when explaining *any* human activity, as it is a better/ deeper explanation than explanations at the level of behaviours (actions) or personality (assessments of persons as a whole)
Key aspects discussed related to how companies typically use KPIs
Start from the KPI and not from the problem and solution (for which the KPI was supposed to be an indicator)
Corrective actions are parochial and without causal power
Corrective actions that have causal power are corrective explanations and contain not only an action but also a goal and argument for how the action will cause the goal, but the corrective explanation is disconnected from the original explanation, i.e. does not serve to improve either one of both or both
KPI focus leads to the idea that only KPIs are a relevant source to criticise a solution. Whereas *any* creative argument can serve as good criticism to improve a solution (think about the aspects of a solution that are still not measurable because too early stage for example)
There are no "problem solving methods".
Reason being that if there were such a method, we would be able to automatically crank out solutions by simply following it.
The same goes for the "scientific method" (science is also problem solving). For example, Einstein had 2 miracle years (1905 and 1915), but followed "the scientific method" every day of his 40+ year career. If there was a valid scientific method, his output would have been much more smooth over that entire period.
Solutions to problems come from creativity, and improvement in solutions comes from correcting mistakes in the solutions. Both creativity (having ideas) and error-correction can not be prescribed by a method.
Which is a good thing ! It allows novelty, progress, improvement, ...
By the way, there is a method for "problem definition" though: the steps to take to define a problem, i.e. the AS-IS vs the TO-BE, the obstacles in between, the root causes of them, ... But defining a problem is still independent from the idea that will solve it.
Does money printing create wealth ? Austrian economics says no and with a very simple but powerful logical argument.
Some thoughts on David Deutsch” definition of knowledge as ‘information with causal power”
Also some ideas on how to use this in organisations
It is not contested that managers rely on their teams to get problems solved.
However, in practise this turns out less easy than stated here. I go into some of the reasons why it is not trivial and concrete ways for improving this.
Unpacking the slogan ...
From the publisher's feed