With many years of experience in industry, innovation, and research, it has become exceedingly clear that invention is often the result of a deliberate search for a solution to a very real problem, not a frivolity sparked to boost one´s adrenalin levels. In industrial problems, the search for a solution frequently starts with someone desperate looking for a solution to a really jinxed, technological headache. In research and science, the problem is often tied to a personal motivation. Whether it is a drive to tackle a problem no one else has been able to solve, filling a need observed in a community or professional environment, or addressing a much more personal need such as an illness that has affected someone close to the researcher.
A scientific/research problem will go through many phases, steps, and cycles. There will be extensive work to uncover what others have done before and published in the scientific literature. Frustration will mount when that search shows to what extent people hold back full descriptions of their science. Contradictory accounts will have to be tested against each other. Reverse engineering from vague descriptions to actual bench results will have to be painstakingly processed. It´s a detective´s job! At the same time, budgetary, equipment, mentor interest, and time will wax and wane in their ability to contribute or actively oppose the work. Assumptions will be tested, challenged, and fundamental starting points will move or be changed completely. That which was “known” will turn out to be insufficient or even misleading, and the “known” will have to be adapted to the current situation. Eventually, the “good enough” solution will have to take the place of the desired “perfect” solution, or the process will never end.
While industrial problems share much of the same DNA as scientific or research problems, there are fundamental and important ways in which these problems must be approached differently than pure science. Because of their very makeup and mission, many universities excel at training Scientists and Researchers, but don’t always prepare their students to be Industrial innovators and problem solvers. There is much that industrial innovation gleans from pure research and science, but it is important to also spend time focusing on having our students be able to provide solutions to the day-to-day “real-world” work that is being done around the planet. Here we will explore some of these unique differences that industrial innovation and problem solving have. At UPAEP we have managed to build up both great science and research as well as world-class industrial problem solving. This unique combination of training environments must continue to be nurtured and fostered as well as trumpeted to the four corners of the earth as a leading differentiator for UPAEP in today’s crowded engineering and research education markets.
For industrial problems specifically, the colorful accounts of exotic symptoms manage to shift the curiosity of any self-loving “Tech-tective” into overdrive. However, experience also tells us that, no matter what the industrial client believes, the actual cause of the problem is probably still unknown. In fact, “le problème” exists, at least to an extent, because some fundamental issues are not clearly understood by most, if not all, involved in the issue. We might say that “The dilemma lies in the eye of the beholder”, rather than in scientific or technic laws.
“Once upon a time, the world was totally devoid of issues… then humanity came along!”
Therefore, when anyone hires a “Solutions Engineer”, or Solutioneer as they have been dubbed at CESAT, it’s clear that the root cause for all the upheaval remains unknown, and that the initial step would have to be a profound, multidisciplinary and open-minded investigation.
“Now come on, surprise me!”
The deeply-involved specialists on the industrial client’s side, working day after day at the same factory, sometimes trying to solve that very same problem, often develop “Workshop Blindness” that prevents them from seeing what may be readily apparent to an outsider. They clearly have the knowledge and the experience, but their canned-up point of view isn´t very helpful. So, for most major industrial problems, the “home team” can often provide only one half of the solution.
Long-lived, enduring problems tend to be hidden under many strata of pseudo-solutions, cooked up by various people over many years. Over time, the original problem got disguised to such a degree, that it started to look like something entirely different, producing the heavily anticipated “Congrats, we did it, the problem is no more!” But long-lived problems are also “outside-the-box problems”, requiring outside-the-box thinking! In most industrial scenarios, where immediate and inexpensive results are the unwavering expectation, the whole search is a daunting enterprise. Once under time-and-cost pressure, many a “Wizard´s Apprentice” dives for cover behind the all-powerful “There is no solution!” or the more mellow “I give up!”.
It is at this crossroads of need and dead ends where the Solutioneer must shine. The charge as a Solutioneer often requires careful archaeological excavations through often years of half-baked solutions, until the original cause of the problem suddenly leaps into sight. All this can only be done with the combined effort of several very different people, asking unpopular questions, carefully listening, carrying out first-hand observations, and seasoning all this with a healthy dose of serendipity and “ah-ha” moments.
Multidisciplinary knowledge, years of hands-on experience and an innate knack for perceiving weird and uncanny connections, are clearly helpful assets when it all comes down to spot the broken link. Most of the time, however, the investigator will be on his own, with few points of help and far between them. Many can start the search for solution with the logical, measured steps that are taken. Few can keep it together when all apparent logical steps result in dead-ends. In the heat of the moment, stress and pressure, any usable tools or helpful tips are welcome…
For those unfaltering spirits that won´t surrender, there is a type of gauge, that enables them -at least sometimes- to measure how far the proposed solutions fall from the real, fundamental problem.
“How easy has it been to explain the issue´s root cause and possible solutions?”
Obviously, any misunderstood problem would tend to sprout invalid solutions, like fungi in a damp forest. Under this light, any accurate description of the actual obstacle would seem counter-intuitive. In a nutshell, if the solution is easily explained and sold, something is very suspicious. The industrial world has been focused on massive optimizations for so long, that the simplest solutions are very likely not the case, as any single-issue problems would likely have been eliminated long ago. That is not to say they don’t exist, but one should not count on their existence simply because it would be cheaper and highly desirable to achieve a quick fix.
All problems, especially modern industrial problems, are not islands, but networks of cause and effect, modifiers, inputs and outputs. They are hazy, ghostly appearances, intimately -but invisibly- related to many other situations. The same action that may obliterate one of them can also cause fantastically unexpected effects at many other points, that -more often than not- will be acknowledged as a completely new and unrelated complication.
It is clearly desirable to document the research in such a way, that the insights and discoveries are not lost in the synthesis, in order to allow others, at a later moment, to re-enact the whole process and understand the why´s and how’s of the conclusions. This could significantly improve future options in the never-ending battle against the “Ghost in the Machine”. Problem-solving should never be done lightly.
However, the documentation of industrial problems alone will not be enough to ensure that future industrial problems solvers will have a clear path to success. Our academic charges at this institution must be prepared not only to tackle the scientific and research questions the world has for them, but also to be the Solutioneers that the world will need in every industry and in every major and complex human endeavor. Both focuses require solid foundations in critical thinking, innovation, creativity, resilience, open-mindedness, teamwork, and problem solving. However, they are sufficiently different that we cannot assume that training for one type of innovation and problem solving will automatically leave our students prepared for the other. We must strive to give students the opportunity to experience and be mentored in both major approaches to innovation and problem solving and give them the tools to go forth as the best and most transformative professionals we can train. UPAEP has a unique opportunity in Mexico -and probably all Latin America- to be this kind of transformative training center, it is up to us to ensure that this opportunity is used to its fullest potential.
Any future technological endeavor will require Solutioneers to fix problems! This is one job that Artificial Intelligence or standard educational models and outcomes simply cannot cover.
Dr. Juan Manuel López Oglesby
Director, Posgrados en Ciencias de la Ingeniería Biomédica
UPAEP
Fis. Alfred Max Hofbauer Balmori
Consultor Tecnológico e Innovador, CESAT
UPAEP
