Pyramid Principle: Logic in Problem Solving
This part of the book is about using structure BEFORE analysis to simplify thinking.
Sequential Analysis
Minto offers up a framwork for the problem solving process:
Sequential Analysis, a particularly efficient problem-solving technique that involves finding the answers to a particular series of questions in logical sequence:
- Is there/is there likely to be a problem (or opportunity)?
- Where does it lie?
- Why does it exist
- What could we do about it?
- What should we do about it? (Minto [1996] 2018, p 121)
These 5 questions correspond to 3 phases: “Define the problem” is (1) and (2); “Structure the analysis” is (3); and “Find the solution” is (4) and (5).
Define the problem
Minto suggests using structure to define the problem before doing analysis. She gives 4 elements in a “dramatic story” describing how the situation developed that caused us to start exploring it:
- The Starting Point/Opening Scene is the background that the reader knows (e.g. “We have a sales process”)
- The Disturbing Event is some change or discovery prompting us to do the analysis now (e.g. “Quarterly sales is projected to be down 10%”)
- R1 (Undesired Result) is the status quo, what we don’t like about the situation (e.g. “Threat to annual growth”) It seems like R1 is very commonly similar to The Disturbing Event
- R2 (Desired Result) is the desired state, what we want instead (e.g. “Continue at 10% growth”) (Minto [1996] 2018, p127)
Once this background is clarified, she encourages us to precisely clarify whether or not the reader already has a solution in mind (or indeed, has previously tried a different solution). With this clarified, we can readily identify the SCQA introdution (the Complication is always the “last thing known to the reader” (Minto [1996] 2018, p133)).
Readers will generally face one of seven problem solutions, depending on where they stand in terms of seeking a solution:
Most common circumstances
- They do not know how to get from R1 to R2
- They think they know how to get from R1 to R2, but they are not certain they are right.
- They know for sure how to get from R1 to R2, but they do not know how to implement the solution
Variations on the most common circumstances
- They thought they knew how to get from R1 to R2 and implemented it, but the solution turned out not to work for some reason.
- They have identified several possible solutions, but don’t know which to pick.
Also possible but not common
- They know R1 but cannot R2 specifically enough to permit looking for a solution.
- They know R2 but are not sure whether they are at R1 (typical benchmarking study) (Minto [1996] 2018, p 131)
Structure the analysis and Find the Solution
Here Minto mostly encourages the the use of logical trees or other structures to systematically identify potential problem areas for hypothesis and experimentation.
She offers a few potentially interesting types of trees:
- Task trees, showing all actions that are taken to achieve a goal
- Negative task trees, showing all actions that could block us from achieving a goal She actually calls this an “Activity Structure,” which is quite confusing.
- Decision trees, where she strongly encourages every decision to be phrased as a binary yes/no decision
Quotes
Alternatives always go in the Complication, because you ordinarily should not bring them up unless they are known in advance to the reader. That is, he will have identified them himself as possible courses of action that he wants you to weigh and analyze. What you specifically want to avoid is bringing up alternatives simply to knock them down. For example, “We have three ways we can solve this problem,” with a Key Line that reads:
Way A is no good because … Way B is no good because … Therefore, do way C The reason for not doing C is not that A and B are no good; the reason for doing C is that it solves the problem. (Minto [1996] 2018, p 135)