Russell Ackoff (Re-Creating the Corporation, 1999) outlines four fundamental ways to treat a problem: absolution, resolution, solution and dissolution. In this post I’ll give a brief overview, illustrated with the Philips-Alessi water kettle.
This Philips-Alessi water kettle (HD 2001/A) offered at the close of the last century—has a beautiful design marred by an equally beautiful minor flaw. The Philips-Alessi water kettle was part of an appliances product line produced in the 1990s by Philips and the result of a collaboration between the Italian designer Alesandro Mendini, creative director at Philips Stefano Marzano, and Aleberto Alessi. It is illustrated with the drawing at the beginning of this post and can be described as follows: “the kettle has a turquoise green injection moulded acetal body, a soft touch burgundy rubber dipped handle, and a metal spout.” (see: Museum of Design in Plastics)
Not only stylistic, but also designed with an eye for use. Take, for instance, the seamless action of placing the kettle on its stand while switching it on. This fluid motion is achieved through the open handle at the bottom, the strategic placement of the switch, and the necessity to pull it down to activate. See illustration below.
However, the kettle also has a flaw: how to open the top? The manner in with it opens clashes with the way it looks like it should be opened. Given its shape and location of the lever at the rear end of the top, one might expect this lever has to be pushed downwards. However, contrary to what the shape and location invites to do, the lever must be pulled backward to open the top. See the illustration below.
So, we have a problem, though perhaps not on the scale of global peace. However, potential buyers in their attempt to open the show model, inadvertently broke the lever, which not only dissuaded them from a possible purchase but also diminishes the appeal of the showroom model for future prospects. At the time I was working on affordances and ecological perception, and found this example interesting as a clear example of prevailing perceptual criteria.
How to treat this? This is where the Ackoff’s four approaches come into play (see Chapter 1: The Nature of Systems in Re-Creating the Corporation, Ackoff, 1999).
1. Absolution: to ignore a problem or mess and hope it will take care of itself and go away of its own accord
First, the most basic approach to problem solving is absolution: to simply ignore it. Any parent is familiar with this scenario. The kids are tearing around, their tiny feet pattering across the floors, racing through rooms with unbridled energy. Toys are strewn about like confetti, forming a vibrant disarray of dolls, action figures, and building blocks. In response, you casually make a cup of coffee, grab the morning paper, and choose to disregard their energetic escapades, allowing them to deal with the situation on their own. Nevertheless, sometimes leaving a problem alone works well.
In case of our water kettle, absolution could mean that a shop simply accepts that showroom model’s lever may get broken.
2. Resolution: to do something that yields an outcome that’s good enough, that “satisfies.”
Second, you can try to resolve the impediment, by using a previously taken approach that has proven to achieve a specific course of action or a particular goal. Something that worked in the past.
Known fixes for “complex” user interaction include for example comprehensive guidance through accompanying instruction manual, or clear visual indications directly on the object. In case of our kettle example looks like both approaches have been applied. The first image below replicates figure 5 from the instruction manual. The second image below shows the arrow shaped indications on top of the lever, hinting at the need to pull the lever backwards.
Clearly, instructions are not a fool-proof. Some of us may remember the VCR clock, the setting of which often considered a perplexing task, requiring a delicate dance between buttons and an intricate sequence, concisely documented in the user manual, yet leaving many users bewildered by its complexity. The blinking “12:00” became a symbol of the technological challenges of an era.
3. Solution: to do something that yields or comes as close as possible to the best possible outcome, something that optimizes.
Third, you can try to find the problem’s cause and with that the solution to the problem. This means you endeavor to understand the problem through analysis, find its cause and fix it. Methods like root cause analysis, the five whys, and failure mode and effects analysis are examples of processes assisting in solving the problem.
In our example, the resolution involved making the broken part available as an replacement part that can be re-ordered. At the time the Philips-Alessi series was released, the lever was not included in the spare-parts list, and was later added as a result of the experiences in the shop (personal communication). The problem most likely was one most likely to occur in the shop. It is reasonable to assume potential clients during unsupervised review of the kettle as a possible purchase were applying force trying to open the top, and in turn breaking the lever. It is not likely that clients, after purchase, would break the lever. Probably the shop assistants had explained the proper way to open the top, and of not, clients likely would have consulted the manual before applying brute force. So to solve the problem of broken levers of showroom models, the lever was subsequently included in the spare parts list for repairs, minimizing the need for shops to cary additional stock and return broken water kettles.
A4. Dissolution: to redesign the entity that has the problem in such a way as to eliminate the problem
The fourth and least known approach is to dissolve the problem through redesign, by redesigning the entity that carries the problem. Through redesign the situation is re-shaped so that the problem does not occur anymore. An excellent illustration is the refrigerator. Initially, manufacturers had to produce two versions of each model—one with left-hinged doors and the other with right-hinged doors. The sales proportion of each varied, leading to inventory, stocking challenges, and potential sales losses. The problem was resolved by creating refrigerators with doors that could be mounted on either side. Rather than tackling the stocking and production planning challenges encountered, the refrigerator was redesigned, eliminating door-related stocking and planning issues altogether.
In our example, the lever was redesigned to ensure that its opening action aligns better with the operation indicated by the lever’s aesthetics. The updated model’s “lever” comprised two vertical components that need to be squeezing together. See picture below. This resolved the problem of broken levers in the shop.
How to treat a problem?
Which of the approaches is the best one? Each of the four approaches holds value and potential success although dissolving through redesign is anticipated to yield the most robust problem elimination. However, our kettle example suggests that the approach of redesign does not guarantee success. I would argue that, while it solves the issue of a broken lever, it simultaneously compromises the original kettle’s elegant and user-friendly design. A quick check on auction sites indicates that, based on pricing, the initial version fetches about 25% to 35% more than the updated model. Disclaimer: note that at the time of writing only a handful of such kettles are offered, making the observed price difference, at best, indicative without statistical relevance.
What I find a significant benefit of the “dissolving through redesign” approach is that it invites you to contemplate the broader context and focus on value (or absence thereof) inherent in the entity grappling with the problem.
Also posted on LinkedIn