Assume all of the following as “problem solving.”
Apply the five types above to every situation, both at work and in your private life.
At the individual level, aim for better; at the overall level, keep winning consistently; and to keep up with change, keep sharpening your problem solving skills.s
Template 1: Write after :
- Sky (situation):
- Rain (interpretation):
- Umbrella (action):
Template 2: Delete what’s in parentheses and write
- (Sky:situation)
- (Rain:interpretation)
- (Umbrella:action)
Checklist:
- Have you filled everything in, in the order Sky → Rain → Umbrella?
- Have you gathered enough information to state the Sky?
- Did you put your own interpretation into the Rain? You're not just parroting someone else, right?
- Is the Umbrella specific? Does it include 5W1H?
Variation trigger list:
- Can you list multiple Skies?
- Can you derive multiple Rains from a given Sky?
- Can you derive multiple Umbrellas from a given Rain?
- Can you move back and forth between Sky/Rain/Umbrella for "procedure" and Sky/Rain/Umbrella for "meaning"?
- Sky/Rain/Umbrella to think through the work procedure
- Sky/Rain/Umbrella to think through the meaning of the work (intent and expected output)
Other trigger list:
- Even if you came up with one Sky, there's "something else," right?
- Even if you came up with one Rain, there's "something else," right?
- Even if you came up with one Umbrella, there's "something else," right?
===
Example: There's a little snow on the ground and it's slippery, so I might not be able to walk to my usual set-meal place 15 minutes away
- There's a little snow on the ground and it's slippery
- I should walk taking twice as long as usual
- Let's set up a reminder so I leave early
- Something else
- Something else
- Something else
↓
- There's a little snow on the ground and it's slippery
- I should walk taking twice as long as usual
- Let's set up a reminder so I leave early
- ★Let's call the owner to see how things are at the shop
- ★I should pull out my snow boots from the closet
- ★There's a little snow, but it's not actually slippery (needs verification)
Explanation:
Trigger list for when you’re unsure whether to use Sky/Rain/Umbrella or Decode/Ideate/Evaluate/Choose:
- If you integrate Sky and Rain, that becomes Decode
- If you split Umbrella into three parts, that becomes Ideate, Evaluate, Choose
- Decode, Ideate, Evaluate, Choose can handle more complex problems
Checklist to use while decoding
- What are you decoding? Data? What people say? The phenomenon happening? All of it?
- Is the problem unclear? If so, are you decoding it on your own?
- Does the problem look clear? Even then, are you decoding it on your own?
- Did you try changing your perspective?
- Did you look from a different position/role?
- Did you try changing filters, such as applying/changing a framework or switching views?
- Did you try using analogies or rephrasing?
- Did you try identifying the factors?
- PST > Did you try logical factorization?
- PST > Did you try making a factorization tree?
- PST > Did you try making a logic tree?
- Did you try grouping-based inference?
- Did you line up n problems, choose m among them, and consider the common meaning shared by the chosen m?
- Did you think about other combinations as well?
Checklist to review when, during decoding, you feel like collecting more information
- Are you keeping a mindset of creating the answer? You're not taking the easy way out by trying to "find" an answer, right?
- Aren't you collecting too much information? Experience says you can get by with less than what "information gatherers" think, you know?
Checklist to use while ideating
- Do you have the intention to ideate from a zero base for the decoded problems?
- Bias > Aren't you trying to follow past successful experiences?
- Bias > Aren't you trying to rely on intuition?
- Bias > Isn't your ideation trapped in a narrow worldview? Aren't there solutions from a different dimension?
- Can each proposed solution be broken down into a gap-free structure with a logic tree?
- And can that tree break things down and list them out in this order: direction, specific measures, execution plan?
- When you go one level down in the tree, are you conscious of whether it's OR (any one is fine) or AND (must satisfy all)?
- Are you using OR? It's often used at the stage of considering directions. If you don't use it enough, you might miss better options
- Are you using AND? It's often used at the stage of considering concrete measures. If you don't use it enough, your solution will be incomplete
Checklist to use when creating evaluation criteria (during evaluation)
- Are you looking at both easy-to-see and hard-to-see criteria? (easy to see | hard to see)
- Sales, profit | customer satisfaction, compliance
- Reduction, savings | employee burnout level, morale, service attractiveness, investment
- Profitability | social impact, competitive advantage
- Quantitative | Qualitative
- Cost | performance
- Benefit | risk
- Pros | cons
- Hard | soft
- Are your criteria at consistent layers, and is it easy to check for gaps/omissions?
- You're not expressing things vaguely in sentences, right?
- You're not trying to visually disguise ambiguity with a table, right?
- It's logically broken down, right?
Selection list to use when deciding the standard for ranking (during evaluation)
Please choose one.
- Does it seem good to use the current state as the baseline (zero)?
- Does it seem good to use one of the options as the baseline?
- Does it seem good to use the target direction as the baseline and see whether each option aligns with it?
Trigger list to increase objectivity and specificity of scoring methods (during evaluation)
- If the baseline is zero, how about using plus/minus signs?
- How about a 5-level scale of ++, +, 0, -, --? Isn't it easier than numbers or ⭕❌ to see how high/low it is relative to the baseline?
- Can you define the difference between each level, such as the difference between ++ and +?
Method list for conducting a comprehensive evaluation with high objectivity (during evaluation)
- How about the simple sum method?
- 1: Add up the scores for each evaluation criterion for each option to get a total score
- 2: Adopt the option with the highest total score
- But differences between numbers across criteria don't carry much meaning, right? Are you sure this method is OK? Why?
- Weighted sum method
- 1: Same as the simple sum method, but assign weights to important criteria
- Why did you assign that weight to that criterion? Have you discussed it and feel convinced?
- Since it's basically the same as the simple sum method, it's probably difficult. Are you sure this method is OK? Why?
- Constraint method
- 1: Create selection constraints (whether a criterion satisfies a condition)
- 2: Create n constraints and order them from the ones you want to apply first
- 3: For each option, run through how far it satisfies the constraints
- 4: Adopt the option that clears the most constraints
- This often has the highest objectivity and acceptability among these methods. Does this method seem OK?
- Two-stage evaluation method
- 1: First, screen out options using the simple sum method
- 2: Next, evaluate the remaining options using the constraint method
- This may be handy when there are many options. Does this method seem OK?
- Logical matrix evaluation method
- 1: Choose two criteria and create a logical matrix (vertical axis: criterion 1, horizontal axis: criterion 2)
- 2: Do the same to create another matrix. That is, you should be able to make 2 matrices using 4 criteria
- 3: For each logical matrix, plot each option
- 4: After plotting, create a matrix for overall evaluation and plot there as well
- If the evaluation axes are logical, it tends to lead to more objective evaluations. Does this method seem OK?
Logical matrix template:
| Perspective 1 \ Perspective 2 | Low | Medium | High |
|---|---|---|---|
| High | M | H | H |
| Medium | L | M | H |
| Low | L | L | M |
| Perspective 1 \ Perspective 2 | **Low** | **Medium** | **High** |
| ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ |
| **High** | M | H | H |
| **Medium** | L | M | H |
| **Low** | L | L | M |
How to operate the logical matrix:
List to read in advance to prepare for unfairness when you ask someone else to choose:
- If you are not the decision maker, you are not the one who chooses among the evaluated options
- The other party has their own decision-making style
- Even in the same case, some people take risks and others don't
- Even the same person may take risks in some cases and not in others
- Decisions are heavily influenced by each individual's values
- Whether it's an individual or a company, the people inside are individuals, and decisions are always made by individuals
- If you want the other party to choose an option, they won't accept it just because you argue what they "should" do
- After the other party doesn't choose your option, complaining won't help
- You should prepare for the other party's decision-making style
- If you can empathize with the other party's position and feelings, the chance they'll choose your option may increase
- It may sound stupid, but the other party is human too. It can't hurt to do it
Logical tools you can use in the Decode, Ideate, and Evaluate steps.
Examples:
Examples:
Examples:
Profit = (Price - Cost) * Volume
Share = Market coverage * Win rate in covered markets
Example: McKinsey’s 7S framework for organizations
🐰See the “Other trigger list” under Sky, Rain, Umbrella
🐰I’m tired, so I’ll omit the rest…