Shall i make a structure on how to fix a problem or structure to find why the problem occurs?
Let's say a case comes about "bad quality education", should i structure to see WHY the education is bad or should i make a structure on HOW i can fix it and make better education?
Or does it matter since they are similar both would be OK?
What do you think?
…
(edited)
Hi,
It depends on the case and you should clarify the objective clearly.
Even if you start with HOW question, you still need to challenge the existing situation. e.g. if we are hired to develop a new bankruptcy law, and the question is how you would approach it, your first step will be to do the diagnostics of the current law.
Best!
(edited)
How can you fix a problem without knowing why it occurs? So your structure should be to 1) understand the problem(s) 2) find approaches to fix it and go beyond
Hope this helps ;)
I dont' think we are on the same page. Let me rephrase the question. Say our client has a land and now they want it to be green. I can either make a structure like WHY it's not green A) It's not green intentionally B) It's not un-intentionally & keep on breaking down the WHYs.
OR i can make a structure on HOW i can make the field green by making again a MECE structure saying A) How can i make the ground green B) How can i plant additional stuff C) How can i sustain they are green all around the year....& continue decomposing by saying i can lay down grass, i can plant trees & so..
Hi,
In fact, you need to do WHY and HOW respectively. So to continue your example, you need to first diagnose the problem (and understand the root cause), thus you should first ask WHY the education is bad. Following this, you need to move on to HOW to fix the problem.
Best,
Deniz
