Solving the Problem vs Treating the Symptoms

My mentor Jerry Weinberg wrote a great book on problem solving called, “Are your lights on?”.  In it, he defined problem as:

A difference between things as perceived and things as desired

I like this definition a lot.  I used it as a basis for a problem-solving class I developed.  It gives us several angles of attack; we can try to reduce or eliminate the difference, we can try to change perception, or we can try to change desires.

Sometimes we get too hung up on “solving” problems.  Some problems can’t be fully “solved” given the time/technology/resources/information that we have at the moment.  If we throw in the towel because a problem can’t be completely “solved”, we sometimes miss opportunities to improve the situation.  Conversely, if we are judged only on our ability to “solve” a problem completely, we may not get credit for meaningful progress.

If you have incurable cancer, a modern doctor can’t “solve” your cancer problem, but they may have access to medications or therapies that will reduce your discomfort.  If we judge treatments solely on their ability to “solve” your cancer problem, you might miss out on some useful partial solutions.

A few years ago, a friend who was out of town called me.  He asked me to check his house because a neighbor had informed him that his sprinklers seemed to be stuck in the “on” position and were running constantly.  Being a good problem solver, I was hoping I could remedy the situation by figuring out what was wrong and fixing it.

I arrived at his home after dark.  Sure enough, one set of his sprinklers was going full blast.  The swamp that was spreading on the side of his home let me know that this had indeed been going on for quite some time.  There were 4-6 inches of standing water in his side yard, and the water was flowing under his fence toward the below-ground-level driveway of his very rich neighbor.  When I arrived, I thought the primary issue was that the sprinklers were not being effectively controlled.  When I saw that there were mere inches before the small pond being created in his side yard and the neighbor’s side yard was going to crest a cement retaining wall and flood his neighbor’s garage, I redefined the problem.  I needed to turn the water off quickly to avoid potentially expensive damage and relationship harm between my friend and his neighbor.

Cell phones are wonderful things.  I called my friend, informed him of the situation and he walked me through several steps trying to isolate and correct the sprinkler problem.  It was dark, I was up to my ankles in water, and half an hour later we had made no progress.  I suggested I turn off the water main to the house to minimize the flooding, and my friend was disappointed.  An engineer, he really wanted to figure out what was going on, why, and correct it – he wanted to “solve” the underlying problem.  We’ve been friends for a long time, and I love him dearly… but it was getting late, my shoes and socks were wet, I was getting irritable, and the water was continuing to threaten to spill over the neighbor’s retaining wall which would make the problem significantly worse.  

I think I frustrated my friend when I finally cut him off, “I’m going to close the water main so you don’t flood your neighbor, you can deal with the forensic analysis of your sprinkler system when you get home.”

Reflecting on the event later, I realized that it is easy to get so focused on complete resolution of a problem that options that offer intermediate partial relief can be ignored.  A fair question to ask when problem solving is: “Might a partial solution have value?”

I think of this when I hear people disregard partial solutions to real-world problems like homelessness or poverty because a proposal doesn’t address 100% of all cases.  Sometimes a partial solution can be a good start.