One may illustrate why by (building on Gershenson) sorting kinds of problems along two dimensions: their difficulty and their state of change.

If there is no change and no difficulty (or very low change and very low difficulty), there is no real problem to be solved. Rather, it is part of the everyday routine.

If there is no (or very low) change but high difficulty, one may eventually solve the problem by merely sticking with it; it is all about perseverance. But others can too - the problem does not change, after all - and once the solution has been found, a race to solve it most efficiently begins. Which leads to other kinds of problems.

If the problem is simple (no or very low difficulty) but constantly changing, one must adapt, but can normally expect to be successful in doing so. That is to say, even if the old solution no longer works, one can find another quite easily.

If the problem is one of high difficulty and high change – more precisely, if the problem changes faster than solutions may be found – it will be impossible to solve. Consequently, the only viable approach is to accept the situation and manage it to the best of one’s abilities.

Strategic challenges almost always belong to the last two categories, but are almost always described as if they belong to the first two. As a result, we get a lot of promises of guaranteed results that always fail to materialize unless despite themselves, business recipe books that "everyone can follow" even though they lack the ingredients, tools, kitchen, and the most basic cooking skills, and thought-leader quotes that, upon closer inspection, make sense to neither man nor beast.

JP Castlin • JP Castlin’s Post