Problem Solving & Decision Making

  • Print
Details
Category: Design, Materials, Manufacture and Installation

APEK
- WTIA
GUIDANCE NOTE

PROBLEM SOLVING & DECISION MAKING

 APEK GN 248
Rev 1
Issued: 04/03/2014

Developed for: ACA, AICIP, AIES, AINDT, CAAA, Eng Aust, Met. Aust, NATA, Stds Aust, WTIA, & PE Industry & Regulators

1   Scope

The note provides guidance in the form of useful practical principles and steps for problem solving, answering questions and decision making related mainly to technological issues in the Australian Pressure Equipment Industry.

 

2   Basis

These notes are based on experiences of a number of PE technologists and others covering virtually all aspects and stages in the process and use of pressure equipment. The notes are a first attempt to provide guidance, and important issues not included will be added as necessary.

 

3   Problem Solving

Section 4 lists the sequential logic steps which would be followed ideally, but in practical cases the probable steps taken expressed in a brief logic flow sequence is usually done -

  • haphazardly, ie not in this sequence but with the same end result
  • intuitively or instinctively (unconsciously, with the sixth sense and a highly complex pre-programmed or preconditioned brain)
  • sometimes the brain does this in a microsecond when urgent or in danger with some steps missing and an answer Yes or No I will have a go.
  • usually with difficult cases, with much iteration at different times over the period
  • available which can be years in some cases and never in others

 

4   Problem Solving Steps

.1  What is the Problem, Question or Task to be decided or answered?

  • Often not clear and not always that originally posed, and subject to modification.
  • Eg Ban Crackers  ; Blame the manufacturer of fired heater failure.
  • Sometimes asked to help without knowing the problem, eg case required to sign prior confidentiality agreement (Joy2014).
  • Does the subject come within my skills, needs and desires; am I compelled to answer.
  • Most important, the decider must be fair, competent, objective and focussed yet suitably holistic in approach.

 .2  Context:

  • Who is asking the question? Maybe on behalf of others. Feel confident.
  • Why is  the question asked? Is there a hidden agenda? All usually not told – partial reasons only.
  • Am I the one to decide? Am I compelled, responsible or should? 
  • Can I do it? Will I be competent and have resources?  What help will I get. Will I be compensated?
  • Yes, no, maybe, probably, yes with assistance or R&D, I don't know but will help to the best of my ability?
  • Restraints or limitations or conditions? Time, cost, where, powers, secrecy, politics etc. What, where, when, with, how, access, reliability of information. Who is likely to help and oppose. Conflicts of interest? Accountability? Suitable for courts. Will need to go to court?
  • Is the work to be done in stages? What type of end report is needed or wanted (can cost more than the investigation)?
  • Finally, is the question right, clear, or really needs determining?

Note: All the above involve decision making and show how complex the whole process really is.

 .3a  INITIAL TECHNICAL DECISION

  • This will automatically spring to mind and may be right or wrong.
  • Also review briefly, consider other possibilities.
  • Use these with an open mind in the next stage.

 .3  Fact Finding

  • Get ALL the main data readily available, eg documents, photos, vehicle, replies, samples.
  • May not all be true or right Identify facts and truths, eg Hidden Temperature charts
  • Usually incomplete at beginning and even at end of investigation.
  • People resistance at all levels. Confidentiality. Communication skills. 
  • Knowledge search. Advice from colleagues or others. Skill in asking questions and checking replies. Honesty, fairness, not preconceived ideas, not seeking blame or whose fault (usually many involved, not up to me but others – even counts). They had bad information.

 .4  Postulate a tentative most probable solution and answer decision.

  • Often an overall model or flow diagram of how all parts fit the jigsaw is useful.
  • It will change if new information received. May modify the question? Compromise, assumptions and trial and error are involved.

 .5  Analysis

  • Is it a correct answer? Does it cover ALL issues ("the exception tests the rule")? Is accuracy adequate- not too small or too high. Is it based on sound latest science and technology and allow for human factors.
  • Can I justify ALL statements in a court?

 .6  Risks

ie Probability correct or right  and consequences if correct or wrong.

  • Consider risks to ALL - self last and don't ignore, eg all PE designs as designers or verifiers.
  • If risk too high - do more thinking and checks, (ie equivalent to PE CA great risk needs greater checks and "buyer beware" principle).

 .7  Critical Gaps

  • Fill in  ALL OF these by Research, talk to ALL involved (all levels) if can, discuss with experts, dig deeper,
  • EG sins of omission; EG Expert help for Navy insulation, EG William Blake

 .8  Iteration

  • Repeat of all above once or more as necessary.
  • Required when any previous step is modified.
  • Sometimes over 10 times for complex cases.

 .9  Preliminary Answer

  • Consider all essential issues to be covered @ best to have notes or early draft or headings

 .10 Review

  • Is answer  correct  - Does it need "as far as reasonably practical"; or "most probable solution";
  • Also is it ethical, objective, true, positive, constructive, avoids unessential criticism of people or bodies, and your best effort under the circumstances and restraints.
  • Consequential problems escalate with personal criticism which should only be made where essential.

 .11 Draft Reply

  • To cover all essential issues simply and clearly and to suit the circumstances. If can, best to document in addition to verbal reply.

 .12 Review of Draft

  • Carefully and if can best after a day or two to change mood and give brain a chance to fine-tune or recall vital knowledge.  
  • If possible have a friend or colleague briefly review when reply is very important (has high risk)

 .13 Reply

  • Communicate the result or answer as appropriate.
  • Normally by document; but often only verbally when time is short - or by people who consider risks of documentation too high (more frequent with secret material or by people lacking knowledge or being risk-averse).
  • Should have identification and the conditions of it's basis and use. (I don't like "disclaimers").
  • Remember if a court case should result all of your documentation may be demanded by court. Hence check what notes you retain.

 .14  Follow up

  • If can, close the loop with feedback from the client and resulting outcome.
  • This way ALL can gain, eg Case COR tanker incident accident investigation.
  • This is how we make progress.

 

5   References

1  AP1 Item Factors

2  The Art of Anticipation – Prof S Encel etal 1975