A minimalist problem solving model that avoids the creep in of the law of instrument (Maslow's hammer)

This blog article presents a simple model to help avoid the creep in of subtle (or not!) effects of the law of instrument (Maslow's hammer) while problem solving in general. This is applicable to research projects with partners across organisational, geographic boundaries in particular.

A minimalist model for problem solving for business and research projects

At the outset, the model differentiates between and isolates the domains of the problem and the solution. It is important to understand stakeholders' needs 'independent of' and 'in isolation from' technology, known and previously produced solutions thereby focusing purely on the problem. Chances are better that this approach could lead to new innovative 'thought out of the box solutions'.

At the very least, it avoids the expertise in the solution domain introducing the effect of the law of instrument (Maslow's Hammer). That is 'I have a hammer (solution) and everything (problem) looks like a nail to me'.

The model (shown in the diagram above) is derived from the text description in the article from the year 2000 - Features, Use Cases, Requirements, Oh My! - by Dean Leffingwell. The diagram elaborates only high level objects and their relationships and links the problem and solution domains. After this level, it is possible to extend the model by introducing objects that are unique to one's needs (for e.g. use cases, pre-conditions, post-conditions etc.).

This is a minimalist model and in particular it has been effectively used by EU research projects such as STREETLIFE (an FP7 funded research project) for all project members to quickly align with the purpose and goal (the big picture) of their activities. The model is introduced in the deliverable D2.2.2 Blueprint Architecture, Security Architecture and Pilot Specific Architectures (Intermediate) and is effectively employed for the mobility management and control panel (MMECP) use case descriptions.

References

1. Features, Use Cases, Requirements, Oh My! - Dean Leffingwell, SVP, Rational Software, 2000
2. The law of Instrument, Maslow's Hammer
3. STREETLIFE Deliverable D2.2.2
1. Blueprint Architecture, Security Architecture and Pilot Specific Architectures (Intermediate)
2. Download the document from the Cordis Europa Site here
4. The STREETLIFE project on the Cordis Europa Site
5. The STREETLIFE project website

Innovation versus Invention

This post does not conclude with answers, rather attempts to sequence a set of thoughts in the direction of the topic and poses questions that you are welcome to answer or corroborate with your own thoughts.

Innovation vs. Invention : Word usage over time

The Google books Ngram Viewer clearly shows that starting around 1972 the word innovation has appeared more that the word invention in the English corpus it indexes.

Putting aside questions about the quality of the corpus etc. can we ask the question - Is it true that innovation is more of recent times than those of the yesteryears ?

Innovation vs. Invention : Wikipedia definitions
The Wikipedia's entry defines innovation and contrasts it with improvisation and invention

Innovation : Innovation is the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, inarticulate needs, or existing market needs.
Invention : Invention refers more directly to the creation of the idea or method itself.
Improvisation : Is not doing anything new but doing the same thing in a better way.

The diagram below attempts to capture the same thought pictorially.

Innovation is connecting the dots

Innovation vs. Invention :  Creativity Vs. Associativity?

Inventions are definitely creative in nature but an innovation from the above section seems to indicate that it is associative in nature. So what is the relationship between associativity and creativity ?

The paper on 'Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Creative Process' details the following along with the two distinct forms of thought for a creative process.

'The first is a suggestive, intuitive associative mode that reveals remote or subtle connections between items that are correlated but not necessarily causally related. This could yield a potential solution to a problem, though it may still be in a vague, unpolished form. The second form of thought is a focused, evaluative analytic mode, conducive to analyzing relationships of cause and effect . In this mode, one could work out the logistics of the solution and turn it into a form that is presentable to the world, and compatible with related knowledge or artifacts.

This suggests that creativity requires not just the capacity for both associative and analytic modes of thought, but also the ability to adjust the mode of thought to match the demands of the problem, and how far along one is in solving it.'

• Does innovating require the first form of thought - suggestive, intuitive and associative ? 
• Does inventing require a more focussed, evaluative analytical form of thought? 
• How do these words fare in the Google books Ngram Viewer ?

Oh yes, there is an answer for the last question.



References
[1] The Wikipedia's take on innovation
[2] Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying the Creative Process - Liane Gabora
[3] Google Books Ngram Viewer