Problem solving with open-ended thinking

We are not bad at solving problems. This is because of three things. First, the problem can be very precisely defined. Once we can define the ‘end-point’, then we can work backwards to find the solution. Second, we are good at analysis. We analyse the situation. We seek the cause of the problem and then we try to remove that cause. Once again there is something ‘we can get our teeth’ into. Analysis and judgment are the basic habits of our thinking.

Third, we can use standard approaches once we have identified a ‘standard’ situation. This is the way most thinking works: identify a standard situation and then provide a standard answer. The same thinking habits and skills equally apply to ‘task achievement’.

We know what we want to achieve and where we want to go. How do we get there? As with problems, we can work backwards. The process is very similar to a ‘concept fan’ (a technique of lateral thinking). We work backwards from the objective to the broad concepts that might get us there. Then we look for the concepts that would serve the broad concepts. Finally we seek the ideas that would implement the concepts.

With open-ended thinking there is no defined endpoint. We may have a very general end-point: ‘we want new ideas in this area...we want some value’. These very general end-points mean very little. They are more ‘judgment criteria’. They indicate ‘I will be happy if the idea at the end has some value’. Such general end-points have no value in working backwards.

I am looking at a small copper coin of low value. I want some ideas to do with that coin. So I use the ‘random entry’ technique of lateral thinking. This technique is of particular value for open-ended situations. The random word is: ’fox’. From this comes the image of a fox chased by hounds in the usual hunting scene. So why would anyone ‘chase’ small copper coins?

Perhaps there could be a special mark on a few coins. If a coin with such a mark came into your possession you could exchange it for a prize - or certain stores might choose to give a discount. Perhaps coins could have a single letter on them and then word games could be devised with the coins as playing pieces. You would seek to collect as large a range of letters as possible.

Foxes are said to be ‘crafty and cunning and sly’. How could that have a relevance to the coin? Perhaps coins could have a different value if used in different ways.

For example, a certain amount of coins given to charity might be exchanged for a higher value. Coins could be designed to be clever at operating ‘coin in the slot’ machines. Instead of machines having to accept ordinary coins, there could be a meeting half-way where the coins were designed to be easy to use.

Foxes live down holes. Containers of coins. Perhaps a design which makes storage simpler. Many coins used to have holes in the centre. They could then be carried on a string.

Each of these ideas can be evaluated for benefit, cost, disruption, acceptance, etc., etc. The ideas only provide a starting point from which to work forward. For example, the idea of different values could suggest that registered beggars could exchange the coins for a higher value. This encourages giving coins to beggars and also provides a mechanism for returning coinage to a central point.

All this may sound like a scatter-gun approach. It may sound like pointing a shot-gun at the sky and firing in the hope that a bird may be flying overhead. In fact, it is more like working backwards from some ‘possible’ end-points - in the absence of defined end-points.

Another approach might be to go through a list of possible values and then to examine how these different values might be produced. The difficulty here is that the values listed would be the obvious ones (cost, convenience, etc.) and the more remote values would simply be ignored.

SINGLE VALUES

One approach to open-ended thinking is to decide on a single value and then to see how this can be delivered. With the coin example, you would focus on the ‘ease of carrying’ as value. You would then seek out different approaches to delivering this value. A hole in the centre of the coin would be only one of the approaches. Some way in which coins could clip on to each other might be another way.

If you were asked to design a new ‘detective’ figure for fiction you might choose the value of ‘very lazy’. You would then seek to show how the lazy character uses thinking to allow that laziness and yet be effective. For example, instead of chasing the criminal, you figure out where the criminal is going and get there first.

For the same task, we might try the random entry method. From the word ‘SHARK’ might come the idea of a really nasty sort of detective. Such a person would be very dangerous, but not lovable. The reader would love to hate the character. It is very unlikely that such an approach would have arisen from starting off with a chosen value.

SHAPING

Whenever you set out to solve a problem, there is a clear point of satisfaction. The problem appears to have been solved. It is true that the thought-out idea still has to be put into practice. And there may be a solution that is cheaper or easier to implement. Your solution is adequate. However, with open-ended thinking you can never be sure your idea is the best

With open-ended thinking it is rather unlikely that the first idea will be the final one. The first idea is merely the starting point. It has then to be moulded and shaped into a usable idea. But, at least, there is now something to work upon. When there is something to work upon, we can work backwards in the usual way. We could also work forwards using the lateral thinking operation of ‘movement’ - How do we make this idea more usable and more valuable? How do we move forward from this idea - what does it lead to?

CHOICE

When you set out to solve a problem there is a clear point of satisfaction. The problem appears to have been solved. It is true that the ‘thought-out’ idea still has to be put into practice. It is true that there may be a solution that is cheaper or easier to implement. But at least there is an adequate solution.

With open-ended thinking there is no way you can be sure that the idea you achieve is the best. There may be other much better ideas. So you need to keep trying until you have a range of possible ideas. You can then compare these and choose the one which seems to offer the best value. This is purely a pragmatic process. You do need to make alternatives as different as possible, rather than minor variations on the same theme.

The same random word ‘SHARK’ might have suggested a team of detectives who work together to solve crimes. Is the team idea better than the nasty idea? Possibly the nasty idea has more life to it - if it is done well. The team idea is more ordinary.

TEMPTATION

There will always be temptation to change open-ended situations into defined end-points. The use of defined ‘end-values’ is one such approach. It is necessary to resist such temptations and to keep the thinking as open-ended as possible. Once an idea is beginning to be formed then ‘achievement thinking’ can take over, and this is closed-ended.

For all the reasons mentioned here, we do not much like open-ended thinking. It is hard to do and hard to know if you have achieved something useful. Even if you think you have a valuable idea, you may have a hard time convincing others of its excellence.