Solving problems is stressful. Some of the stress comes from the pressure created by the problem. This is an effect of the problem or something the problem creates. Some of the stress can also comes from pressures in solving the problem. Most of the time, this is caused when dealing with constraints. Constraints to solving a problem are sometimes the reason why a problem is difficult to solve. It is when we know how to solve a problem but can't use the solutions we want to. We feel pressured to discard the solutions we like. This mental stress can be difficult. It is difficult to discard anything we like. Relieve that pressure by focusing on this: the solution we like would not have solved the problem. It won't work because of the constraints we are facing. Don't force a square peg down a round hole. Accept the constraints, if it can't be dealt with, and move on.
Once we have accepted that the solutions we like are not the solutions that work, we can move on to other solutions that may work. This process is critical and is part of Step4, selecting the solution. We will always aim for the best solution we can but given the constraints, we think we are compromising on the solutions.
Timeliness of it all Part 2
Continued from Part1.
Once we have determined the goals of the solution (Step2), we can start looking at possible solutions (Step3). Then we choose the solution to do in Step4. One way to do so is to set the criteria for the right solution. The criteria for the right solution may be as important as the solution itself because we are expressing both the goals of the problems and the limitations that we have to take into consideration. One of the most important limits is time, specifically execution time.
A solution that is complete but takes too long may not be the right choice. Think of it this way: Although we can test all the wires to be sure, the bomb may go off by the time we do so. Maybe our problem is not a time-bomb but when considering the factor of time, it works the same way. We want a solution that not only works but works at the right time.
This leads to the question of a compromise on completeness or quality. We may need to sacrifice either or both to meet time limit. It just may be the best choice. However, the adage "There is no time to do it right the first time, but there is always time to come back and fix it again and again" should also be heeded. Consider breaking the solution into two parts. The first part is to meet that deadline. The second is to make the solution complete. We solve the problem partially to avoid other problems if we wait too long but we don't stop until the entire problem is solved.
The reality of it is that some people would view this as wasteful. Why bother with the second part if the first part already fixes the problem? It is important to try to communicate that the first part did not solve the problem but merely delayed the problem from becoming worse sooner. Or that the first part of the solution will itself fail soon. Or simply call the first part not solving the problem. Often at this juncture, there are very stubborn parties that would do anything to stop it there. For them, let's meet their stubbornness by refusing to acknowledge the problem was solved.
Once we have determined the goals of the solution (Step2), we can start looking at possible solutions (Step3). Then we choose the solution to do in Step4. One way to do so is to set the criteria for the right solution. The criteria for the right solution may be as important as the solution itself because we are expressing both the goals of the problems and the limitations that we have to take into consideration. One of the most important limits is time, specifically execution time.
A solution that is complete but takes too long may not be the right choice. Think of it this way: Although we can test all the wires to be sure, the bomb may go off by the time we do so. Maybe our problem is not a time-bomb but when considering the factor of time, it works the same way. We want a solution that not only works but works at the right time.
This leads to the question of a compromise on completeness or quality. We may need to sacrifice either or both to meet time limit. It just may be the best choice. However, the adage "There is no time to do it right the first time, but there is always time to come back and fix it again and again" should also be heeded. Consider breaking the solution into two parts. The first part is to meet that deadline. The second is to make the solution complete. We solve the problem partially to avoid other problems if we wait too long but we don't stop until the entire problem is solved.
The reality of it is that some people would view this as wasteful. Why bother with the second part if the first part already fixes the problem? It is important to try to communicate that the first part did not solve the problem but merely delayed the problem from becoming worse sooner. Or that the first part of the solution will itself fail soon. Or simply call the first part not solving the problem. Often at this juncture, there are very stubborn parties that would do anything to stop it there. For them, let's meet their stubbornness by refusing to acknowledge the problem was solved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
