Leveraging problem-solving style and structure to advance ideas
by Benjamin Atkinson
Each of us have an inherent problem-solving style – and yours isn’t necessarily the same as the people around you. Different problems require different styles; and, complex problems require individuals working together, in harmony, offering a combination of styles.
If you know the task that needs to be undertaken or the problem to be solved, then you can match the most fitting approach to the task. There is no ideal problem-solving style: all approaches have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the circumstances.
Problem-solving style is a topic that has fascinated many of the world’s great thinkers. From Simon Wardley to Dave Snowden, to Dr Michael Kirton – there are several outstanding methods of conceptualize the best practices in solving problems.
So, let’s dig into the theories fashioned by all three of the experts mentioned above – Wardley Mapping, Cynefin (by Snowden), and KAI (by Kirton) – and explore how they overlap.
Let’s start with… Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory
The majority of us like being in a balance somewhere between “being organised & structured” and “being totally fluid and boundary-free” – where that balance lies for you, is your natural and innate preference. This preference, or problem-solving style, is measured by the KAI.
It is best to think of Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory not as a ‘score’, but rather a coordinate of where you are on a continuum.
One’s problem-solving style is measured on a spectrum, ranging from 32 to 160, with a mid-point of around 95. However, your position on the continuum is relative to the people around you. Most people will be more innovative than some, and more adaptive than others – unless they fall at the very extremes of the spectrum.
Your problem-solving style – and that of others – is completely unrelated to how intelligent you are. It is also unrelated to your skill level, experience, your motivation or what status you have attained. You can be a brilliant creative adaptor (such as Thomas Edison), or an amazing creative innovator (such as Nikola Tesla).
The Cynefin Framework
Dave Snowden developed Cynefin over 25 years ago to categorise what he describes as ‘problem solving domains’. These domains reflect the amount of structure inherent in a given problem space or environment.
Cynefin identifies four problem-solving domains:
- Clear
- Complicated
- Complex
- Chaotic
The framework is significantly more detailed and less linear than this list implies, but for the purposes of this article, it will do! The bullet points above have been listed in order of structure (from most to least).
A ‘Clear’ problem-solving domain is highly-structured. An example might be a factory assembly line. It is the most efficient and the best for achieving high quality. Automation opportunities often exist in this domain.
The ‘Complicated’ problem-solving space requires different tools. Sometimes, the analysis of a problem requires specialised training – making this section the home of the ‘expert’ or ‘engineer’. Lean methodologies, or Kaizen, are two well-known methods that fit within this category.
A ‘Complex’ system cannot rely on data analysis – so we use very different tools, which may fall under the commonly-used label of Agile. The goal is to probe the system and try to recognise the emergence of structure, so that patterns can be identified. Once this happens, the challenge can be passed into a more structured category, such as, Complicated or Clear.
‘Chaotic’ has almost zero structure: there are no known boundaries in this category. The responsibility in this situation tends to fall on senior leadership, who will hopefully have high situational awareness, and therefore be able to define a boundary for the team and create a place to start.
How does Dr Kirton’s theory overlay with The Cynefin Framework?
The ‘more adaptive’ individuals will naturally be drawn to the ‘Clear’ or ‘Complicated’ problem-solving domains. In this instance, there is a strong need to automate, analyse, and create consistency within clearly defined boundaries.
Meanwhile, a ‘more innovative’ person will more easily find their feet in a ‘Complex’ or ‘Chaotic’ domain. After all, these situations require the boundaries to be tested – with an agile approach to problem-solving, and a clear ability to manage crises and utilise blue sky thinking to attack challenges in an unconventional way.
It is important to note that KAI is not a typology and we are not trying to pigeon-hole anyone through these graphics or explanations.
Next up is… Wardley Mapping
Simon Wardley developed a powerful method for mapping a system, market, or just about any problem space, known as ‘Wardley Mapping’.
A Wardley Map is deceptively simple. First, you create a value chain beginning with the customer and their need(s). You then list all the components required to fulfill that need.
Once you’ve created the value chain, you examine each component to determine where it falls on an evolutionary timeline. No surprise, this timeline reflects the amount of structure (e.g. acceptance, stability or shared understanding) around the component.
Let’s imagine our tea shop is offering a new blend of tea leaves and dried mushrooms specially-formulated to energize your afternoons. These novel components would be located on the left side of the map. While a component like electricity (or other utility service) would be located on the right side.
Wardley Maps help you see where things are and where they are going, enabling you to spot your next moves.
Wardley developed a metaphor to suggest that different types of problem-solvers (Pioneers, Settlers, Town Planners) are found at different places along the evolutionary timeline. You can see in the map below that Pioneers tend to be found on the unstructured side of the map, Town Planners on the structured side, and Settlers in the middle. Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Theory tells us why.
How does Dr Kirton’s theory overlay with Wardley Mapping?
Just as Simon Wardley described the existence of ‘Pioneers’ in his mapping method, Dr Kirton wrote about those who are ‘more innovative’.
Put simply, people in both categories are typically more:
- Ground-breaking
- Spontaneous
- Unconventional
- Experimental
These people want to solve problems in a ‘new’ way and will happily push past boundaries in the process.
Meanwhile, Simon Wardley described people who take emerging patterns (e.g. minimum viable product) and turn them into repeatable processes or successful products as being ‘Settlers’. Applying the KAI spectrum, this represents people who have no strong preference for either chaos or order, which is where the highest percentage of people in the population finds themselves.
These individuals are capable of dealing with more or less structure more easily than the extreme ends of the spectrum. This is essential for bridging or translating between extremes.
Last but not least, ‘Town Planners’ were described by Simon Wardley as being those who enjoy the details, and are excellent at thinking in systems and process. This is comparable to ‘more adaptive’ individuals in KAI theory.
Put simply, people in both categories are typically more:
- Organised
- Structured
- Safe
- Reliable
These people are incredibly valuable in transferring the discovery of a new idea into something that is repeatable, reliable, and easily communicated to the masses.
Combining problem-solving theories
The combination of KAI with other problem-solving theories, such as Wardley Mapping and Cynefin, can be extremely valuable in helping people to learn more about themselves.
It is important to state that there are no absolutes in characterizing individuals. For example, we shouldn’t assume that a more adaptive individual would want to be a town planner in a particular scenario, nor that a more innovative individual would be the best candidate to be a pioneer. In working with people, we need to account for motives, opportunities, learned skills, and experiences.
The purpose of this article is to show how each theory takes a different slant on the problem-solving process, they can complement each other very well, can help your team consider their position within the problem-solving process, and how new ideas can be advanced to be made future-proof.
About Benjamin Atkinson:
Benjamin Atkinson is a KAI Master Practitioner and Director of Innovation & Value Management at CNA Insurance. He helps organizations design systems and build teams for creating, communicating and commercializing new ideas.
Please click here to his LinkedIn profile and learn more about his work.
