The Primitive Pete

I don’t have the greatest recollection of my days in middle school but there is one thing that stands out in my mind, Industrial Art’s class. I don’t remember my instructors but I remember it was my first experience bending metal. We fabricated ash trays which we proudly brought home and presented to our parents. Aside from the interesting social commentary it was the first time I had actually produced a useful product with my hands. My dad, however was not too interested in my profession in the ash tray fabrication business. I remember him telling me on numerous occasions to get into a business where I could use my head... where I could think and get paid at the same time.

There is one more thing I remember.  I was introduced to a character who has lived with me ever since. His name was Primitive Pete. Primitive Pete had a staring role in an educational film produced in collaboration between General Motors and Walt Disney Productions known as the ABC’s of Hand Tools. A quick search on the Internet and you can view some of what remains of the Primitive Pete material. Pete was an interesting character; he of course was a caveman intent on using all the available hand tools he could find, in the wrong way. Using a screwdriver as a crowbar for instance and always, always using a hammer for just about every application. Now my memory of Pete is most likely flawed and having found the material on the Internet I intentionally did not go back and change my fond perception of him after 30 years – so please forgive me if there are some inaccuracies as I report him to you.

The important part of this topic is that there is a right way and a wrong way to use a tool. And there are certainly many tools available to the professional analyst. Tools, models, spreadsheets, simulations, programs, algorithms, heuristics, hierarchies, etc. all must be used correctly in order to have a remote chance of doing the job correctly. Unlike Primitive Pete however, if you use the wrong hand tool you will do a lousy job and even worse someone could loose an eye. For us, the use of a wrong tool will probably go unnoticed by most, and in the main no one will get hurt or killed in the process of doing the analysis. The end result will be the same, however, a bad job.

The bad job will manifest itself at some later time following the equally bad decision that could be made as a consequence of the influence. It’s certainly not inconceivable that someone could get hurt or die as a result of a bad decision – although this essay should not be so bleak as too suggest that product safety or sound engineering principles in the fabrication of a product wouldn’t be assumed – the other guys always to their job correctly. So we are professionals in are trade at the office, not shade tree mechanics or Norm Abram’s carpenter want-a-bees as we might be at home. Professional means we know what we are doing and we will do the job correctly with the right tools at our disposal.

So why do we fail? Typically it is because we use the tools that are in our toolbox just like Primitive Pete. If the tool is in there we will probably find a use for it. It saves us a trip to the hardware store. Also, our tools tend to be very expensive software applications – and it is difficult to retool the factory without a major investment. Another reason is training – we know how to use the tool that’s in the box – if there is another one, we may not know about it or may not know how to use it. In addition, even if the tool in the box is the correct tool for the application, very frequently we don’t use it correctly or we don’t bother to sharpen it, to draw yet another analogy with hand tools.

I’m fairly certain that an unsharpened tool is about the most dangerous one of them all. That’s the wood chisel that when sharpened will carve wood like soft clay but when dull you will invariably drive deep into the palm of your hand. So here are a few examples from our profession. Using a linear program to optimize a non-linear behavior. Using old data or data that has been prepared by another group that is not fully reviewed and understood in the context of your analysis. Adding too much complexity to a spreadsheet thereby loosing either the cause/effect traceability or fixating on a portion of the problem that is not the main concern. Or conversely, over simplifying a problem that requires more detail.

The list goes on and some of the right ways to approach problems will be addressed in further installments of this blog...please stay tuned.

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.