A technique for each stage of the process

Typically done in a rush by students, defining a problem in the wrong way may lead to completely ineffective solutions. So, how to improve the capability to define a problem?

Among the practical techniques for addressing a problem situation is the 5 Why’s. From the original statement of a situation or problem, the “why” question is asked 5 times iteratively to end up very close to the root cause of the problem. For example, starting from the statement “consumption is ruining our ecosystem”:

• The first “why” may lead to the answer “consumption of finite resources that consequently emits damaging wastes is a threat to the ecosystem”.
• Now, the question “why” is asked a second time on that particular response, which may lead to a new answer: “availability of resources is not necessarily taken care of by the whole value chain at the time of production and neither would wastes be systematically accounted for at the time of design of a product”.
• Now, we ask the third “why” to this new statement, the answer could possibly be because “actors of the value chain may not be coordinated, nor having sufficient awareness, motivation or knowledge as well as supporting regulations and public policies so as to take into account firstly the availability of resources at the time of product design and planning for production, as well as secondly the alternatives in terms of Refuse-Reduce-Reuse-Repurpose-Recycle potential” and we continue the process until the answer to the fifth “why” is a deep reflection on the actual root-cause of a situation or problem.

A close technique is the so-called Fishbone Diagram or Ishikawa Diagram (see links in the references of this lesson).

For collecting the widest possible range of data and opinions, an interesting technique is the so-called De Bono’s 6 Thinking Hats.

In this technique, “oriented thinking” is imposed with the help of a structured process that alternates with different ways of thinking. Those ways of thinking may be formulated as “functions” or “roles”. Each way of thinking is symbolised with a colored hat. By mentally wearing and/or switching hats, one can redirect thoughts, the conversation, or the meeting. The colors have the following signification:

• The white hat is imposed to simply enumerate information and facts, without any interpretation.
• The yellow hat symbolizes brightness and optimism, one can only think positively and focus on value and benefit considerations.
• The black hat limits considerations and interpretations to a risk, difficulty, and problem-oriented perspective, helping to spot what might go wrong.
• The red hat allows one to express feelings and intuition.
• The green hat focuses on creativity, alternatives and new ideas.
• The blue hat is used to manage the thinking process.

The exercise starts with an explanation of the meaning of the hats and the ongoing process.

Then everyone “puts on” the blue hat, for deciding and agreeing on the upcoming sequence of hats. The sequence itself may have an impact on the outcomes of the process, therefore a lecturer/animator can well impose the sequence, for example:

1. Red hat: for breaking the ice, sharing first feelings and impressions
2. White hat: for listing facts, levelling the shared knowledge and understanding about the issue considered
3. Green hat: for generating ideas, making both synthesis and analysis efforts
4. Yellow hat: for looking optimistically to proposed ideas and opinions
5. Black hat: meant for tempering proposed ideas and opinions

Alternatively, the lecturer/animator or the team itself may decide to freely alternate with the blue hat (to correct a wrong-going process), or any of the other hats for a role/function that may appear critical to go back to during the process.

The technique can be implemented ideally in small groups but works also with a large group. It works best onsite, but can be used online optimally with small groups (for example 6 individuals).

For a large group, the colored hat is switched for everyone, therefore everyone has the same perspective at the same time. Alternatively, in a relatively small group (for example between 6 to 18 individuals), different roles may be assigned so that there are dynamic interactions at the same time between people “wearing” different hats.

For supporting both stages of examination of data and assessment of its validity one can make use of the simple but effective SWOT Analysis tool.

The tool gives opportunity to classify arguments into four categories, namely:

• Strengths (S): those aspects and arguments that guarantee relevance and reliability of the data
• Weaknesses (W): those that hinder relevance and reliability of the data
• Opportunities (O): aspects that may give potential future value or advantage for example in using the data considered
• Threats (T): aspects or events that may put at risk the quality and relevance of the data or the subsequent analysis if they are to realise

A more complex setting of the SWOT analysis would be to give weights or scale the different arguments to support more accurately the possibly upcoming decision-making stage.

c1	c2
S Guaranteeing elements for relevance  and reliability of the data	W Hindering elements to relevance  and reliability of the data
O Giving potential future value  or advantage in using the data	T Put at risk the quality  and relevance of the data

Finally, for training students in making decisions and presenting them, an interesting technique is to initiate a role-play or situational simulation. While preparation of the materials supporting the activity may take some time for the lecturer, role-plays are typically an unforgettable experience for students.

A well designed role-play would have a certain number of “parties” (person or group of persons) which are in a discussion/negotiation process for solving a problematic situation.

A typical role-play in the context of green transition is to ask a certain number of parties to establish a multiparty agreement with some or all of the following potential actors:

• Corporate industry manufacturer
• Possible competitor to any corporate industry manufacturer
• Civil non-profit organisation (e.g. consumer association, environmental protection association, minority representative organisation)
• National level public body (e.g. tax collector or regulator)
• Community level public body (e.g. tax collector, community development unit)
• Landfill / recycling company
• Cross-sectoral actor (research institute)
• University Education actors

Role-plays may impose the following features for sake of realism and complexity:

• A fixed agenda imposed by the lecturer, with limited number of meetings between parties for framing the timeline and limit negotiation resources
• Publicly known objectives to all parties
• “Secret” objectives, that are not of knowledge to all parties, including disturbing elements such as blackmailing or bribing
• Incidents to be informed upon during the negotiation process to realistically disturb the negotiation process (for example an environmental hazard)