What We are Taught

We are all problem solvers. Some of have been to school, and some of us have learned by being on the job for many years. All of us have learned something about the right way to make decisions. Unfortunately, like leadership or management techniques, we have also learned a lot about the wrong way to make decisions. It is the factors contributing to the wrong way to make decisions that we must always remember if we are to change our bad habits.

We have learned, for instance, that we must be team players or we must protect and defend our territory. These can be instinctual but they should not be automatic if we are attempting to ascertain the truth. Defending our program is natural and many times the right thing to do, however, if our program is detracting from the greater good of the larger enterprise the truth must be surfaced. Many times it can be heard in the back rooms of programs that have started to run thin, “If we only had the analysis to show our worth”, and then they go looking for something to save them.

Perhaps they will find what they are looking for, don’t let it be you. Those of us who have been professionally trained are not immune to the pleas of a program in need of assistance. If we aid a dying program in need, we fall into a category that will be explored in greater depth later. The contrary side of looking for analysis to defend a dying program is have analysis to support the elimination or divestiture of a dying program. Now, this might very well likely be the truth, but what we have learned is the folks that spread bad news like this are the ones who are not team players and when bad news is known, it tends to be swept under the table, and woe be to the individual who blows the whistle.

Still there is more to be learned in school. In a professional analysis educational program such as Operations Research many formal disciplines have been developed. We have been taught to apply the techniques to problems and we have been trained to look for problems that fit the mold of a given technique. We call this formulaic analysis. A good analyst will know exactly what problems can be solved with their particular application and what application cannot. And then they can apply their formula. Sometimes a particular application will be pushed on a problem for reasons that can only be described as self interest – these reasons and the persons behind them will be treated in later.

Hopefully the self respecting and quality analyst will not attempt to use an application where it is not intended, yet still mistakes are made and the wrong tool for the job is used. In most cases this can be attributed to a misunderstanding of a much greater problem. And this gets back to problem definition, the hardest part of analysis. There is only one solution to this dilemma and unfortunately there are not many courses being taught on the lost discipline of thinking and in particular, critical thinking. Yes we are talking about over used buzzwords such as thinking “out of the box”. That is about thinking and being creative in general. Critical thinking, on the other hand is about using discipline and things such as the Scientific Method to fully explore a certain domain. Then tightly constructed logical arguments can be made to make inferences, create testable hypothesis, and generally wander around in side of decision space. All of these things can and should be taught in a professional analysis curriculum. Some do and some don’t.

When interviewing analysts its important to understand if they were either formally instructed in critical thinking or they came to it via experience. Either way, those who have learned or established critical thinking behavior can be invaluable to an organization and should be identified. Others, who have mastered formulaic analysis do have their role, but one cannot assume that just based on the title of analyst alone, one carries the moniker of someone who can think critically as well. Yet, perhaps the worst thing we have learned is that because analysis was done, or because this decision was based on analysis, that we have discovered the truth.

Too many decisions have been based on bad analysis in the past, that perhaps too much trust has been lost. Unfortunately, bad analysis is understood all to well and leads directly to an assumed fix to the problem. If we do not trust a small team of analyst to do a good job, a large team is probably the answer. It is true that by getting a larger set of eyes on a problem will typically lead to the discovery of errors in a complex calculation. In no way do we suggest that more people can’t be brought in to review or look at a problem. What we have learned, however, is that collaboration must naturally lead to better answers. This, however, is practically never the case. Collaboration, in most cases, leads to extending the length of time it takes to get an answer and, unfortunately it leads to compromise. Too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth. If some people like salt and other people like hot sauce, you cannot compromise and put both into the soup and expect anyone to like it. Unfortunately, because collaboration has occurred, we have been taught that it must have lead to a better solution.

Less people may get in trouble if it was a group decision to do something stupid, but nothing has been gained. Allowing the analysis to occur in small teams should be the first consideration. The analysis can be brought forward for the review of other people, but never to influence or participate, only to review for errors, but we are now ahead in our discussion. Here we are merely reporting what we have learned to do. Soon we must break these habits. But first there are still a few more bad habits we have learned that should be fully understood before we suggest methods to help.