Good post! Which is to say, I agree with it's premise ;-)
It's human nature to be problems solvers and speak to solutions (option A vs. option B) as a proxy for the problem the solution(s) solves for...without first getting explicit to and aligning about what the problem is first (ie: identify the goal without a solution) and then also identify what it means to solve that problem (achieve that goal) in a high quality way. What I like to call the "quality attributes" of all possible solutions.
ie: skipping this step pits options against each other in a dichotomous way.
Instead, we should never be debating solutions against each other, we should alway be refining possible options against the quality attributes which themselves get better refined as we consider many ideas as options. This avoids locking into an A vs. B argument and instead focuses on authoring an option "C" that is better than any prior A's or B's considered.
Good post! Which is to say, I agree with it's premise ;-)
It's human nature to be problems solvers and speak to solutions (option A vs. option B) as a proxy for the problem the solution(s) solves for...without first getting explicit to and aligning about what the problem is first (ie: identify the goal without a solution) and then also identify what it means to solve that problem (achieve that goal) in a high quality way. What I like to call the "quality attributes" of all possible solutions.
ie: skipping this step pits options against each other in a dichotomous way.
Instead, we should never be debating solutions against each other, we should alway be refining possible options against the quality attributes which themselves get better refined as we consider many ideas as options. This avoids locking into an A vs. B argument and instead focuses on authoring an option "C" that is better than any prior A's or B's considered.