Step 3: Identify Resources Available to Solve the Problem: Examine each similarity between the current and the comparative situation, answering these questions:

• Will this similarity help me to achieve an important goal or cluster of goals?
• Am I confident that this similarity is not likely to change during the course of problem solving?

If the answer to these questions is “yes’” then that similarity will be a significant resource in the solution of the problem.

Step 4: Determine the Most Likely Cause of The Problem: Examine the differences between the current and the comparative situations. The most likely cause of the problem will be that potential cause that explains all of the information collected about the problem situation.

Step 5: Determine Whether the Problem Is Unique or Generic: One of the dangers of any approach to problem solving is that it can be seen as primarily reactive. People are taught to wait for a problem to happen, then to respond. At this point in integrated problem management, however, you can begin to move out of that reactive mode by pausing a moment to consider whether the problem is unique or simply a symptom of a broader or more generic problem.

If the problem is unique, you can move on with some hope that, once it has been solved, you will not see it again. If, on the other hand, the problem is generic, you need to decide whether the symptoms are significant enough to warrant continued attention. If they are, you need to continue managing the immediate problem. Once those symptoms are under control, however, you might want to address the more generic problem by returning to the beginning of the problem-solving process. If the symptoms are not significant enough to demand immediate attention, you might want to start addressing the generic problem.

Ideas [Proposal for Moving from Current to Desired State]

What is the best path from the situation to the target? This is where the means, plans, strategies, implementation procedures, and possible actions are identified. When some clarity is gained regarding the nature of a problem that is being addressed—and with misinformation and lies hopefully being avoided—it is time for movement to finding the best set of actions to be taken in addressing this problem. While some initial proposals or pilot tests might have been taken as a way to gain greater clarity regarding the current situation (domain of information), the focus is now on preparing a set of actions that are not only taking into account the valid and useful information that has been collected, but also directed toward the desired outcomes that have been identified.

Idea generation usually involves two steps. The first is based on the value of expanding the range of possible actions. This is often labeled “divergent” problem-solving. In effect, we are trying to increase the NOISE associated with our target. The second step is based on the value of homing in on a small number of potential actions—selecting from the broader range of options identified in the first step. This second step is often labeled “convergent” problem-solving. We may be moving toward greater clarity and commitment – or might be increasing the BIAS. Thoughtful, slow thinking (Kahneman, 2011) is required.