Case study: cables negotiation — part 2/8 — Build a why tree (1/2)

This entry is part of a multi-post case study.

So, you’ve defined your problem; well done! Now you need to look for its root cause(s) by building a logic tree.

A logic tree helps you be exhaustive in your thinking process—by forcing you to not leave any possibility out—and efficient, by considering each possibility only once. So it is an essential part in the resolution of any complex problem (here is a basic explanation of logic trees).

Perhaps the most important part of the tree is the left-most branch off: how you separate your key question into its different parts, so be ready to spend some time on that.

Think about various way in which you can breakdown your problem

In most cases, you can breakdown your key question in more than one way.
In this case study example, we can break the key question (“Why does it take so much time to close negotiations with our cable providers?”) in at least three manners: by responsible (because we prevent the close vs. because the providers prevent the close), by attribute of the value proposition (because we can’t agree on the price vs. because we can’t agree on the offering), by stage in the process (because we don’t plan the negotiation well vs. because we don’t execute the plan well), etc.

Be innovative and come up with various potential breakdowns. It is in your best interest to come up with as many of those as possible; at this stage, as long as they are MECE, they are good enough.

Once you’ve developed potential frameworks, you need to select the best. So… how do you define “best”?

Select the most perspicacious breakdown

The answer is, choose the most perspicacious breakdown, as in, choose the breakdown that bring the most value in this particular situation. Just to be clear: this is very problem-specific. You can have very similar situations and find that in one situation one breakdown works better than the other and the other have the other breakdown work better.

As an illustration, consider the old joke of the driver of a car asking a passerby where she is and his reply: “in a car”. The joke is funny because, although it is technically correct, the answer isn’t perspicacious at all; that is, it brings no value to the driver.

Or, at least, that’s the premise in 99% of the cases. But remember that we don’t know anything about the situation. What if the driver had just fainted? What if she had just been in an accident? Would the perspicacious answer now be directions, or would it be to tell her she is in a car?

We’ve talked in other posts about how problem-solving is an art that requires you to exercise good judgement. This is one stage of the process where you need to apply your good judgment so to help you choose the best potential framework probe to understand the implications of your choice, i.e., ask yourself the respective “so what” of your candidate frameworks. So it might be useful to write down the implications of your frameworks and to spend some time thinking about them—as well as asking friends/coworkers what they think and let it sit for a few hours so you get some perspective.

In this particular example, we went with the first framework. I’ll show how the logic tree developed in another post.

Related Posts:

• Case study: cables negotiation — part 3/8 — Build a why tree (2/2)
• Use processes appropriately
• Case study: cables negotiation — part 5/8 — Identify solutions (1/2)
• Use existing frameworks wherever possible
• Only ask how if you know why