Do you really need a bigger boat: the problem with rushing to solutions

‍Spotted a shark?
You need to get out of the water. 

‍Realised it’s a killer shark?
You need to get it out of the water. 

Realised it’s a massive, killer shark?
You need to get a bigger boat … or do you?

When you’re faced with a big challenge - like a killer shark, or more likely a gnarly project - looking for bigger, better, faster answers sounds good, but will a bigger boat really help resolve the situation?

‍ 

It's human nature to seek quick solutions. We're wired to resolve problems fast, but rushing to solutions isn't always effective.

I was working with a client recently. They had a simple request,
‍“We need to replace a system, can you help?” 

Well, yes, of course we can help, and, because I’m a BA I asked, why?
“Why does it need to be replaced?”
“It’s end of life and besides that, it causes so many headaches, we need something that's a better fit for our business.”

My spidey senses lit up. There are two lines of questioning here,
“What does it mean to be end of life in this case?”

Will it stop working completely? Will it stop receiving updates? Will it cease to be supported? I went the other way.
“Tell me more about the headaches…” 

Immediately, I recognised the pattern: a system isn’t working the way an organisation either wants it to or expects it to, and a reason has been identified to get rid of it. The immediate conclusion in this case was to replace it outright. 

I offered to spend some time with them to explore how we might be able to help. Fast forward to a workshop with key stakeholders. We discussed the system in more detail. They still hadn't established what “end of life” meant to them in this particular situation but, to them, it didn’t matter: the system needed to be replaced.

Like a shark to a beach full of Amity Island vacationers, I jumped in front of a whiteboard and started scribbling as we talked. We covered the regional variations, noted to one side, same with the types of customers. Before we knew it, we were all looking at the end to end process, some of the variations, and when key data was being captured.

Next question, my arms gesticulating at my scribbled creation on the board, where in all this does the system get used? Expecting the answer to be “all of it”.
‍“The last box.”

The system they believed was causing all the problems, and the one they were wanting to replace, was only being used right at the end of the process.

Standing in front of my whiteboard, and about to ask my next question, it was like watching lightbulbs go on, one by one… 

A system being ‘end of life’ is a problem, but it’s not the problem. We all realised that replacing this particular system wouldn’t actually fix any of the pain they are experiencing.

The takeaway from that workshop was that the scope for the project was not just a system replacement, rather it had to involve a broader look at process and data standardisation. Not only did it give my client the clarity to resolve some really painful issues, it also had the effect of reducing the complexity of the system replacement.

Lesson here: Replacing technology alone may not solve the core problem. Taking time to understand the bigger picture helps address root causes, not just symptoms. After all, if you have a killer shark, a bigger boat might make you feel safer above the water, but it doesn’t mean the shark has fewer  teeth under the water. Ultimately, in Jaws, Chief Brody didn’t get a bigger boat. Instead, he found out the hard way that what he really needed was a bigger bang.

Next time you jump to solutioning, consider taking some time to really think about the real problem, not just the issue you experience or see. The root cause is normally out of sight, lurking in the depths to reappear when you think it’s gone away. It’s not the size of the boat, it’s the size of the shark.

Understanding these biases can help us become more aware of our tendency to leap to solutions. Here are some psychological reasons why we tend to jump to solutioning.

‍Action Bias: the urge to do something, anything, rather than wait and see.

Analysis can feel a lot like wait and see. Time taken to think, or assess is time not delivering.Humans have a natural inclination towards action, even if that action isn’t necessarily the most effective thing. Doing something feels more productive than taking time to understand the underlying problem or contributing factors.

Anchoring Bias: over-relying on the first piece of information.

The tendency to be influenced by the first piece of information we receive. We experience a problem, find a solution, without digging deeper. Our perspective is ‘anchored’ to our experience. Or, most commonly, “was/now” pricing in a sale. Was $300, now $99.

Need for closure: the desire for definite answers and the discomfort with ambiguity.

We generally prefer certainty and predictability. Identifying a potential solution can provide a sense of closure. It gives us something known to focus on, but it’s not always effective. 

Hope and Optimism bias: the tendency to believe the first solution will work out well.

We will often be overly optimistic about the first solution that comes to mind, hoping it will fix the issue quickly and easily. Some researchers propose that optimism bias encouraged our ancestors to take more risks. 

‍

There are many other factors at play, but these four resonate with me a lot, and I see them play out in almost every project in some form.

‍

Matt Duce is Redvespa's Head of Consulting. He does not own a boat, but is very considered in the face of a challenge and, undoubtedly, would've been a calm head in support of Chief Brody.

‍

Further reading:
‍The Optimism Bias - Time
The Anchoring Bias - The Decision Lab

‍