Are

You a Good

by Dean L. Gano

In 50 Words
Or Less
• Traditional problem-
solving strategies work
by chance, not by
design, because they
are people centric and
subjective.
• Principle-based ap-
proaches, on the other
hand, provide unbi-
ased details and more
informed solutions.
• A look back at the
history of traditional
problem-solving strate-
gies can help develop
new, effective methods.
 problem solving

Problem
Solver?
Improve your
skills by moving
from a people-
centric process to a
principle-based one
if you are like most people, you probably
think you are a pretty good problem solver and
have a good overall understanding of problem-
solving practices. Yet, because you are reading this
article, you also understand the value of continuous
learning to improve your effectiveness.
Throughout history, people have used various
strategies to solve event-type problems with vary-
ing results. Unfortunately, traditional problem-
solving strategies—such as the fishbone diagram
and the five whys—work by chance, not by design,
mainly because they are people centric and sub-
jective, rather than principle based and objective.
Consequently, individuals or stakeholders may walk
away from the table feeling satisfied but having an
ineffective solution.

May 2011 • QP 31
 In contrast, principle-based approaches provide un-
biased details and, therefore, more informed solutions.
Principles, by definition, are laws that work the same
every time, regardless of the user or observer, while
people-centric processes are subject to interpretation
and individual perspectives.
So why are the most accepted problem-solving
strategies people centric, and how can we change that
tradition?
To find the answer, you need to review some tra-
ditional problem-solving strategies and what history
teaches us about them. Then, examine how new con-
cepts, with help from past teachings, can improve the
problem-solving process.
Traditional strategies
The basic approach to problem solving, discussed
throughout history—from Buddha to present time—is
1
causal observation. Sometimes referred to as “street
smarts,” this strategy calls for observing an environ-
ment with an eye on cause-and-effect relationships.
For example, if you see smoke, you know there may
be a fire because you understand the set of causes as-
sociated with fire.
While causal observation serves us well, there are
no accepted principles of causation to actually guide
us in using this strategy. Instead, we use other strate-
gies, including these five:
1. Linear thinking: Similar to a row of falling
dominos, when you simply ask why, why, why—simi-
lar to the five whys method—you believe A caused B,
B caused C and C caused D.2 Somewhere at the end of
this causal chain is a magical single cause that started
everything—the root cause. 3
In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas taught the fal-
lacy of this strategy when he proposed that, “Potency
cannot reduce itself to act.” Or, as he clarified with this
example: “The copper cannot become a statue by its
own existence,” meaning it requires the conditional
cause of the copper’s existence and the actions of a
sculptor.4 Unfortunately, this simple and important
observation has not been understood or incorporated
into everyday thinking, and most people continue to
see the world linearly.
2. Categorization: Categorizing causes is a com-
mon event-type problem-solving strategy. Instead of
identifying the actions and conditions of each effect,
this strategy places causes into a predefined box,
32 QP • www.qualityprogress.com
which implies some causal information. Categorical
schemes—such as fishbone diagrams, Management
Oversight and Risk Tree5 and cause trees of every
kind6—prescribe a hierarchical set of causal factors
based on the reality of one person or a group.7
Using a tree of causal factors—not causes—that
usually start with the categories of manpower, ma-
chinery, materials, methods and environment, these
methods provide a list with subcategories and sub-
subcategories. These lists, which range from one page
to several, often claim to include all the possible causal
factors governing human activities.
The stated goal of these methods is to find the root
cause. This is accomplished by asking whether the
problem encompasses any of the causal factors on the
predefined list. If any correlations are found, the stake-
holders discuss them and vote on which causal factors
are the root causes. Solutions are then applied to the
root causes.
Some of these methods are bold enough to pro-
vide predefined solutions for the problem. While this
method provides some structure to the problem-solv-
ing process, it is not principle based and creates many
other problems.
In addition to what Aquinas taught about every ef-
fect having at least two causes, as early as the fifth cen-
tury B.C., Buddhist writings reveal, “As a net is made
up of a series of knots, so everything in the world is
connected by a series of knots.”8
At the heart of this observation is a fundamental
principle that all causes are part of a complex infinite
set of causes, yet this simple observation is ignored
when using prescribed hierarchical problem-solving
strategies.
Buddha went on to say that duality and categoriza-
tion are simple-minded constructs that ignore the real-
ity of causal relationships.9 For example: Is it good or
bad that the lion eats the gazelle? Neither, because it is
an event consisting of many complex and interactive
causal relationships.
Using the duality of good or bad and right or wrong
simply puts the problem into a category and ignores
the causal relationships of the event. This strategy is
part of a larger, simplistic strategy, suggesting that if
you can categorize something, you can implement stan-
dard solutions. For example, if something is bad, you
must act against it. If something is good, you should
revel in it. If the training is inadequate, you can make it

Traditional problem-solving strategies work by
chance, mainly because they are people centric
and subjective rather than principle based
and objective.
better, but inadequate is not an actionable cause.
Categorical strategies may have worked fine in the
past, but in today’s world, understanding the causal
relationships of significant events can make the differ-
ence between extinction and survival. This applies not
only to businesses, but also to people’s lives and spe-
cies’ survival.
As in the causal observation strategy, however, cat-
egorizing is at the core of pattern recognition, which is
a fundamental biological process built into the genome
of higher life forms. Therefore, it is only natural to de-
velop methods such as causal factor charts.
Because categorization is a natural brain process,
people who use these methods think they are effective.
But when asked to explain all the causal relationships
of a given event, they can’t do it, although they usually
have a good understanding of the main causes and may
even be able to explain some of the causal relation-
ships. At the same time, they are not able to effectively
communicate them because these relationships reside
in the mind, not in a tangible format that can be shared.
Categorical processes simply do not delineate
causal relationships.10 When other stakeholders can-
not clearly see the reasons—causal relationships—be-
hind a decision to change or are not able to share their
causal understanding of the problem, they are often
reluctant to accept the proposed solutions.
Once upon a time
3. Storytelling: Throughout history, our primary form
of communication has been storytelling. This strategy
describes an event by relating people (the “who” ele-
ments), places (the “where” elements) and things (the
“what” elements) into a linear timeframe (the “when”
elements). Stories start in the past and move linearly
toward the present, while cause-and-effect relation-
ships always start with the undesirable effect (the
present) and go back in time, branching into at least
problem solving
two causes each time we ask why.
Stories are usually void of causes and tend to leave
out causal evidence. They often use categories, in-
nuendo and symbolism to infer causal relationships.
Stories, by their very nature, are often focused on hu-
man actions while ignoring the necessary conditional
causes. For example, a story might tell of a fire being
started by an arsonist, but it won’t mention that the
cause of the fire also included the conditional sourc-
es—flammable material, a match and oxygen—and
that all these causes came into play at the same point
in time and space.
While conditional causes may not be important for
a story to be entertaining, they are often the source
of the most effective solutions to a problem because
they are more easily controlled than human actions.
To prevent fires, for example, you often separate the
conditional causes in time and space by not allowing
the fire source—match or flame—and the combustible
material to be near each other at the same time.
4. Belief in a single reality: The notion of a single
reality—often called the truth or common sense—is an
insidious and common human strategy that holds that
we all know the same thing—or at least that those in
our group hold the same beliefs. As early as the 18th
century, David Hume, an important figure in the Scot-
tish Enlightenment, stated that people’s understand-
ing of cause and effect is based on mental constructs
unique to each observer.11
Is there a single reality we can all know? Of course
not. That is a biological impossibility. No two brains
think exactly alike, not even those of conjoined twins
who share the same life experiences. People’s under-
standing of reality is as unique as everyone’s fingerprints,
formed from every experience of their lives by a nervous
system with limited and varied senses, and a brain that
provides for an infinite set of perceptions using an end-
less set of strategies to establish their own truth.12
May 2011 • QP 33
 Because a standard set of principles that help define
the complexity of reality has not yet been developed,
people tend to use the easy button of common sense.
This likely explains why those who use categorical
methods believe they can create an all-inclusive causal
factors chart that includes everyone’s causal reality.
The lesson from Hume and the knowledge of how
the brain works is that if people are going to work to-
gether to the advantage of all, they have to abandon
the notion of a single reality and find a way to create a
common reality that encompasses the personal reality
of each stakeholder.
Defining and using fundamental cause-and-effect
principles, along with stated evidence for every cause,
will lead to this common understanding because it will
allow everyone’s reality to be included in the event
analysis.
5. Root cause myth: This is a common strategy
found in most categorical schemes. Again, because of
linear thinking, the belief is that there is a root cause
at the end of a cause chain, and the goal is to find
it so you can remove or control it, and thus prevent
the problem from recurring (which, by the way, is the
core definition of a root cause).
History shows that this strategy has been around for
a long time. In the 13th century, Aquinas also stated
that nothing is caused by itself; every effect has a prior
cause, so there must be a first (root) cause.13 As he has
already taught, however, causal reality is not linear be-
cause it requires at least two causes in the form of an
action and a condition.
Reality is more like Buddha’s causal net, which is
similar to Figure 1; the minimum causal structure of
every event is an ever-increasing set of causes—from
two to four to eight to 16 to infinity—with some feed-
back loops included. Because there is potentially an
infinite set of causes for a given event, a singular first
(root) cause is not possible.
To ensure effective solutions, you must first have
a clear understanding of the known causal relation-
ships. Then—and only then—can you
determine which causes, if removed or

An infinite set of causes example / Figure 1 controlled, will prevent problem recur-
rence. The causes to which the solutions
are associated are then, by definition, the
Why? Cause/
effect ∞ root causes. Therefore, root causes are
Cause/ secondary to and contingent upon the so-
effect lutions, not the object of your search, as
Why? Cause/
effect ∞ the categorical processes would have you
Cause/ believe.
effect
Why? Cause/
effect ∞ Principles of causation
Cause/
With this short, historical review of hu-
effect
Cause/
Why? effect ∞ man problem solving, you can see that
while the great thinkers had some good
Causes increase when we ask why
ideas, the lessons of the past have not
Effect 2 (minimum) 4 8 16 32 ∞ been fully incorporated into traditional
problem-solving processes. What you
Why? Cause/
effect ∞ have learned from this stroll through his-
Cause/ tory will help you define some cause-and-
effect
Why? Cause/ effect principles and use them to refine
effect ∞ the conventional elements of effective
Cause/
problem solving.
effect
Why? Cause/
effect ∞ Some cause-and-effect principles in-
clude:
Cause/
effect • Causes and effects are the same thing.
Cause/
effect ∞ • Causes exist in an infinite continuum.
• Each effect has at least two causes in

34 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

Principle-based approaches provide
unbiased details, and, therefore, more
informed solutions.
the form of actions and conditions.
• An effect exists only if its causes exist in the same
space and timeframe.
The first principle from Buddha and Aquinas is that
causes are observed as a sequence in time from effect
to cause. And because you can only ask why of an ef-
fect, what was previously a cause must be referred to
as an effect so you can continue to ask why. Therefore,
causes and effects are the same thing, only seen from a
different point in time.
The second principle from Buddha’s causal net
shows that causes and effects are part of an infinite
continuum of causes. There are no laws or principles
that require you to stop asking why, only our own ar-
rogance to think otherwise.
The third principle from Aquinas says each effect
has at least two causes in the form of actions and con-
ditions. While he did not require them to occur at the
same point in time and space as the fourth principle
states, he provided the most enlightening principle of
them all, yet most people completely overlook it. This
fourth principle states that an effect only exists if its
causes exist in the same space and timeframe and is
self-evident in Newtonian physics.
Effective problem solving
To continue to use people-centric problem-solving pro-
cesses instead of principle-based strategies is unac-
ceptable in this complicated world. Instead, use these
principles to redefine the protocol for finding effective
solutions to event-type problems.
At a minimum, effective event-type problem-solving
should include the following actions:
• Define the problem to include the significance or
consequence to the stakeholders.
• Define known causal relationships to include the
actions and conditions of each effect.
• Provide a graphical representation of the causal
relationships to include specific action and condi-
tional causes—no stories or categories.
problem solving
• Provide evidence to support the existence of each
cause.
• Determine whether each set of causes is sufficient
and necessary to result in the effect.
• Provide effective solutions that remove, change
or control one or more causes of the event. Solu-
tions must be shown to prevent recurrence, meet
goals and objectives, be within your control and not
cause other problems.
• Implement and track the effectiveness of each solu-
tion.
In the quest for continuous improvement, you must
recognize failed strategies, have the courage to aban-
don them, embrace better ones and forever challenge
what you think you know. If enough people discover
these principles and find the courage to abandon the
comforts of their own reality, maybe we can actually
live up to the ideal that a dedication to quality requires
continuous improvement. QP
References
1. Prinya Yogavipulya, Concise Principles of Buddhism, second edition, White
Lotus Press, 1957.
2. Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, Beyond Feelings: A Guide to Critical Thinking,
seventh edition, McGraw Hill, 2004, p. 112.
3. Stanford University, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Causal Process-
es,” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-process, Sept. 10, 2007.
4. Vernon J. Bourke, The Pocket Aquinas, Washington Square Press, 1960, p.
67.
5. Paul F. Wilson, Larry D. Dell, and Gaylord F. Anderson, Root Cause Analysis:
A Tool for Total Quality Management, ASQ Quality Press, 1993, p. 187.
6. Ibid.
7. Paul F. Wilson, Larry D. Dell and Gaylord F. Anderson, Root Cause Analysis: A
Tool for Total Quality Management, ASQ Quality Press, 1993, p. 48.
8. Bukkyo Dendo Kyokai, The Teaching of Buddha, Society for the Promotion
of Buddhism, 1966, p. 54.
9. Ibid, pp. 53-64.
10. Said Boukendour and Daniel Brissaud, “A Phenomenological Taxonomy
for Systemizing Knowledge on Nonconformances,” Quality Management
Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2005.
11. Bourke, The Pocket Aquinas, see reference 4.
12. Rita Carter, Mapping the Mind, University of California Press, 1998, p. 106.
13. John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1964, p. 22.
DEAN L. GANO is the owner of Apollonian Publications
LLC in Kennewick, WA, where he has been teaching
and promoting effective event-based problem solving
for more than 20 years. Gano earned bachelor’s de-
grees in mechanical engineering and general science
from Seattle University. He is a member of ASQ.
May 2011 • QP 35