This is my first article. I had to wait a long time before writing it, until a solid argument was ready. I’m a social systems researcher at Thwink.org, working with various collaborators since 2001. I’m in awe of what the Kos community has been able to accomplish and have been lurking since 2006.
I’d like to begin a deep conversation with the Kos community on the question: Is it possible to take a more effective problem-solving approach to achieving progressive goals? I suspect it is, based on two decades of research at Thwink.org, one published paper, four books, and a theoretical argument backed up by measurement and a small amount of experimental evidence. But to be honest, I don’t really know if the new approach will work, since it has not been implemented on actual difficult social problems. Thus, I invite serious readers to scrutinize the argument pretty hard, and then offer opinions, questions, alternatives, and so on. There is a tremendous amount of skill, knowledge, and motivation here. With focused collaboration, I expect we can end up with a collective “YES, and this is our plan to get started.”
In this first article I will introduce the argument. Subsequent articles will then cover a series of supporting components of the argument, plus other subjects as the need arises.
The class of difficult large-scale social causal problems
Here’s the argument. First, what do all of these unsolved progressive problems have in common?
- Environmental sustainability, especially climate change
- Systemic racial or gender discrimination
- High inequality of income and wealth
- Democratic backsliding, from democracy to authoritarianism
- War and other forms of large armed conflict
The answer is all are members of the class of difficult large-scale social causal problems. Grassroots activists, academic researchers, NGOs, and enlightened politicians have been trying to solve these problems for decades, not just in the US but around the world. Despite often brilliant and prolonged effort, their solutions have mostly failed. Why? For the answer we turn to the planet’s top problem-solving experts: the most successful businesses in the world.
What problem-solving tool do the world’s top three management strategy consultancies (McKinsey, Bain, and BCG) use to solve their client’s toughest causal problems? Root cause analysis in the form of MECE Issue Trees. What tool do 100% of aerospace, motor vehicle, electronics, and pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 and 82% of all companies in the Fortune 100 (source) use for quality control? Root cause analysis in the form of Six Sigma. What tool has become the global default best practice in large manufacturing companies? Root cause analysis in the form of lean manufacturing. The pattern is so strong it’s hard to find a large successful company that doesn’t use one or more explicit forms of root causes analysis.
Root cause analysis
Next, let’s examine why root cause analysis has become industry’s top tool for reliably solving its own difficult large-scale causal problems.
Root cause analysis is the systematic practice of finding, resolving, and preventing recurrence of the root causes of causal problems. A root cause is the deepest cause in a causal chain (or the most basic cause in a feedback loop structure for more complex problems) that can be resolved by changing something in the cause, such as stopping it, increasing it, or fixing it. A causal problem occurs when problem symptoms have causes, such as illness or a car that won’t start. Examples of non-causal problems are information search problems and math problems. Root cause analysis is performed by starting at problem symptoms and asking “Why does this occur?” until the root cause(s) is found, a method known as the Five Whys.
Root cause analysis is civilization’s core problem solving tool for causal problems. The process has these steps:
The Four Main Steps of Root Cause Analysis
- Define the problem in terms of its symptoms.
- Diagnose the problem by finding its root cause(s).
- Develop solutions for resolving the root cause(s).
- Implement the solutions.
Every time a doctor treats a patient, they run through these steps. Every time you solve a causal problem, such as why won’t my car start or how can we end this recession, you are using root cause analysis whether you use root cause analysis terminology or not. The key is to get the root cause right because everything that follows depends on that.
From the viewpoint of root cause analysis, why are solutions to difficult progressive problems failing? Given how well known these problems are and the fact that countless solutions have failed, the answer must be that step 2, find the root cause, is flawed. As we explained at the beginning of this article using a cartoon, step two was performed intuitively instead of explicitly. Because problem solvers are not using an explicit form of root cause analysis, they have performed step 2 intuitively, resulting in a flawed diagnosis.
A flawed diagnosis causes solutions to attempt to solve intermediate (proximate) causes instead of root causes. This won’t work. It would be like diagnosing the reason your car won’t start is a dead battery, so you replace it with a new battery. A week later your battery is dead again, because the root cause was a bad alternator that was unable to charge the battery.
If it's a difficult complex problem, a flawed diagnosis occurs because of the Superficial Solutions Trap. This occurs when due to problem complexity, problem solvers mistakenly assume an intermediate cause is the root cause. No amount of solution force on an intermediate cause will work, because a root cause emits a much stronger force.
Reliably and efficiently solving difficult complex causal problems to a high level of quality requires formal, prolonged application of an appropriate form of root cause analysis. No other method is known. Other approaches exist, like expert opinion, trial-and-error, and SWOT analysis. But they are not reliable and efficient because they are not based on root cause analysis.
That’s a penetrating insight with immense implications: NO OTHER METHOD IS KNOWN. This is why progressive activists must change to an analytical approach based on root cause analysis, if they want to optimize their chances of achieving progressive goals.
As the four main steps of root cause analysis show, the basic process is generic and dirt simple. It must therefore be wrapped in a process designed for each particular class of problems, which is why (as explained earlier) industry has developed MECE Issue Trees for general difficult causal problems, Six Sigma for process quality control, lean for large-scale manufacturing, and countless more processes. By long-term continuous improvement of these processes, companies have been able to turn various forms of root cause analysis into their top problem-solving processes.
Social force diagrams
This raises the question: What would be a suitable wrapper process for root cause analysis for difficult large-scale social causal problems look like?
Surveying the literature and our own experience in solving business problems, we found no root cause analysis-based method was suitable for this class of problems so we were compelled to develop one, a common occurrence on novel problems. For example, “After extensive review, NASA found that none of the commercially available tools and methods would support a comprehensive root cause analysis of all the unique problems and environments NASA faces,” causing NASA to create RCAT, their own Root Cause Analysis Tool (source, p73).
Over a period of seven years of many iterations, Thwink.org simultaneously developed a suitable process and applied it to a member of the class of difficult large-scale social problems, environmental sustainability. The result was social force diagrams. The tool is generic and was designed to analytically solve difficult large-scale social problems. Below is a brief introduction to how it works, using the My Car Won’t Start Problem as an example:
The form of root cause analysis used is cause-and-effect diagrams organized into superficial and fundamental layers, with the desired system mode change initiated by root cause resolution. Start reading at Problem Symptoms and work down by asking “Why does this occur?” until you arrive at the root cause. Like a good cartoon, the diagram is largely self-explanatory.
Suppose a person tries to solve their My Car Won’t Start Problem without the right diagnostic tool. Here’s how it would go: “Why won’t my car start? Because of a dead battery. Hmm, I guess I’ve got to fix the battery. My options are to either buy a new battery or recharge the old one. Recharging is cheaper, so I’ll try that.” A week later the battery is dead again, because they fell into the Superficial Solutions Trap by assuming an intermediate cause was the root cause.
Now suppose a person tries to solve their My Car Won’t Start Problem with the right diagnostic tool. Here’s how it would go: “Why won’t my car start? Because of a dead battery. Hmm, I wonder why the battery is dead? It’s not that old, so it shouldn’t be dead. Let me check the alternator output with a volt meter, the same one I use to check problems in my house and appliances. Wow, the alternator is only putting out 10 volts. That’s not enough to charge the battery, so I suspect that’s the root cause. The high leverage point for resolving the root cause is to fix the alternator somehow. My options are to have a mechanic replace it or repair it. I’ve got a good mechanic. I’ll let her decide.” She replaces it with a used alternator and the problem is solved.
Think of social force diagrams as a reusable template. Imagine all the boxes in the above diagram are blank. That’s where you start with a new problem. The first step is to define the problem in terms of problem symptoms. Then, using the Five Whys, you find the intermediate cause(s) and then the root cause(s). As you go you fill in the other boxes.
The Autocratic Ruler Problem
Let’s apply the tool to a past difficult large-scale social problem that is near and dear to progressives: The Autocratic Ruler Problem. Please note this a simplified analysis.
One of history’s most intractable problems was autocratic rule by countless warlords, dictators, and kings. The chief symptom of the Autocratic Ruler Problem was low median quality of life while rulers are much better off. Why did that occur? Because of mostly bad rulers, who concentrated income and wealth into the ruling elite.
Is this an intermediate or root cause? The historic leverage point was forced replacement of a bad ruler with a good one, using solutions like revolution, uprising, assassination, coup, etc. While these offered short term gains, they failed to result in permanent long-term change, since new bad rulers appeared. This repeated solution failure indicates mostly bad rulers is an intermediate cause. If the problem is solvable, there must be a deeper cause.
After thousands of years and much painful trial and error, problem solvers intuitively found that deeper cause. It was no easy way to replace a bad ruler with a good one, more broadly known as low ruler accountability. What would be the high leverage point justification for an easy form of replacement? It was the concept that people have rights and thus must have power over their rulers. This, in the hands of the writers of the US and later French constitutions, crystalized the solution of modern democracy, whose essence is the Voter Feedback Loop. Once the first few countries adopted the solution, the benefits were so attractive that a feedback-loop-driven systemic mode change occurred and democracy swept most of the world.
Is no easy way to replace a bad ruler with a good one an intermediate or root cause? The dramatic mode change and the fact the solution has lasted for centuries indicates this was the main root cause and confirms that mostly bad rulers was an intermediate cause.
Conclusions and looking ahead
Our question was: Is it possible to take a more effective problem-solving approach to achieving progressive goals? That’s too big a question to answer well in a single article. What we’ve done here is lay the foundation for answering the question. We draw these conclusions:
- Reliably and efficiently solving difficult complex causal problems to a high level of quality requires formal, prolonged application of an appropriate form of root cause analysis. No other method is known.
- The business world has developed various forms of root cause analysis to such a high level of process maturity that root cause analysis has become industry’s top problem-solving tool for routinely solving its toughest problems.
- Given the universal and generic nature of the four main steps of root cause analysis, there is no logical or practical reason why progressives cannot do the same, once they develop a wrapper process that fits the class of difficult large-scale social problems.
- Social force diagrams are a starting point for doing that.
Subsequent articles will cover much more, so that people can evaluate the root cause analysis paradigm in depth and we can discuss many details. Thwink.org can also be used as an educational resource.
Looking ahead, we have a first iteration comprehensive analysis of the democratic backsliding problem to discuss once how root cause analysis works is understood. If the analysis holds up to scrutiny and lots of kicking of the tires, then perhaps it can serve as the starting point for a more mature group analysis, and thus save much precious time.
Hopefully with serious discussion we can arrive at a solid answer to the question. Given how critical (one could say existential) the democratic backsliding problem has become and the looming US November election, I’m hoping our answer is a resounding “YES, and this is our plan to get started NOW.”
The next article in the series is here.
