Understanding and articulating the problem (“a less than ideal state” says Gene Agre in The Concept of a Problem (1982) is the most crucial step in creative thinking. But, it’s as important to know whether you are fixing the cause or the effect.
The cause-effect analysis is part of virtually every problem solving methodology, perhaps most famously in the ‘Five Whys’ that under-pins the Lean methodology. Or to put cause-effect in different terms – particularly for creative thinking and brainstorming – you are trying to understand the problem and its defects.
If interested, you might try a related post on .
One of my favourite brainstorming techniques brings the cause-effect issue to the front, called Stop It or Mop It.
Stop It or Mop It (aka The Cause of the Effect)
Originally created and defined by Dr. Robert Harris, a retired professor of English at the University of California at Riverside, Stop It or Mop It is based on the two primary ways of problem solving the cause (‘stop it’) or focusing on its effect (‘mop it’).
- Cause addresses head-on the source of the problem, including the reasons for the cause.
- Effect addresses the result or consequence of the problem as well as its symptoms.
Stop It (Focusing on the Cause)
The Stop It half of the technique focuses on addressing the cause in three ways:
- Prevent it from happening
- Eliminating it altogether
- Reduce it in size or context
Prevent It
This step aligns with arguably one of the best pieces of business advice: Prevention is best.
- It’s cheaper
- It’s most efficient
- It links to higher customer satisfaction
- There’s long-term savings
There are many tools out there which can help you do this. I love scenario planning or scenario thinking for this type of issue. In particular, I’ve found this type of approach works very well with developing issues or crises management plans. You may find a good way to start this type of planning is by researching best practices, both from within your industry or those who are similar to those metaphorically. For example, when I worked on the Holiday Inn business, our team spent time understanding how airlines checked in passengers as a metaphor for how hotels checked-in its guests.
Eliminate It
Of the six approaches, Eliminate it sounds ideal. While it’s a common approach to brainstorming overall, I know from experience it’s important to discuss – before the brainstorm – whether or not the problem can actually be eliminated.
When you think about, you really only challenge the problem in three ways:
You eliminate the problem. All I have to say is: Good luck! Think of how many things in life are completely 100% eradicated. Eliminating the problem can also be expensive, time-consuming, politically sensitive, bigger than just one organisation, etc. In other words, if you select this one: be careful and be realistic.
You minimise the problem. Part of the issue here is to understand what aspect of the problem are you making smaller? Notice too, minimising – aka reducing – is the next point.
You contextualise the problem. You put the problem into context, which might look like you’re just avoiding the real problem. It’s also addressed below in Mop It.
Reduce It
This approach lessens the problem, often without eliminating the original problem entirely because 100% reduction is impossible, unrealistic or long-term. Also, problems in this category tend to be behavioural issues of the target audience, either physical reduction (ex: consumption, waste or addictions) or emotional reductions (ex: anger, boredom or apathy).
If this is true in your situation, you might spend more time than usual on psychographics of your end user to more fully understand the point-of-view of the audiences, if not engage them in the brainstorm itself.
Mop It (Focusing on the Symptom)
The Mop It half of the technique focuses on addressing the effect in three ways:
- Treat the problem by repairing or fixing it
- Tolerating the problem, either by choosing putting
- Redirecting
In many contexts or situations, these approaches can be taken as passive, so the tone – as well as the tactics – need to be strongly considered, if not be proactive.
Treat It
This is repairing or fixing the problem. The advantage of this approach is that it’s tailor-made for hands-on involvement to solve the problem, either by internal groups (senior executives, influential employees) or external publics (concerned consumers or citizens). The disadvantage of this approach is that it can be construed as less effective than elimination of the problem, or worse, “too little, too late.” You need to be quick and thorough in roll-out and implementation. Of the six approaches here, I hav found this strategy lends itself nicely to credible experts and spokespeople who can offer commentary and stimulate conversation directly with end users.
Tolerate It
This is my least favorite of the six approaches because it’s essentially compromising, or worse, it looks like I’m doing nothing about the problem. Then again, not every problem is a forest fire. Sometimes you have other things which are more urgent or have a bigger impact.
This strategy can work when the problem is temporary or transitional. I’ve used this strategy as a potential solution in negotiating between two opposing parties or opinions. (‘Let’s compromise on the best solution for now, and move on.”)
Redirect It
As Harris says in his original white paper, the problem in this approach is deflected. In my days working in communications, I found this strategy worked when we needed to bring another point of view to light, either both context or balance. (Beware, in case someone like an influential end user sees this as nothing more than spin or propaganda.)
For example, when I was a spokesperson for MasterCard, ‘spin’ often made it harder for me for two reasons. The listener decides what’s true, not me. Second, the other party (if not the listener) sometimes feels like its an an accusation or they’re to blame. The company was often attacked by journalists for MasterCard (as well as Visa, to be honest) not taking full responsibility in encouraging teens to spend beyond their means. They didn’t like to acknowledge our opinion: that the parent must shoulder some of the burden in teaching their children financial responsibility, not just the credit card itself.
If I learned one thing about this approach, it works best when you – as the decision maker, the person implementing the program, or the spokesperson – is transparent, lucid, sensitive, and offered as another perspective. It works less well when the messages are “we’re the right position” vs. “you’re the wrong position.”
What other approaches or strategies have you used to address problems in your campaigns or projects?
You can read about other brainstorm techniques by clicking .
1 Comment
Great thank to Dr Robert Harris for formulating these helpful approaches in any problem solving