Two Georges’ Thinking

I like two Georges’ ways of thinking, so I’ve taken note of them here.

From George Pólya’s method for mathematical problem solving:

1 Understand the problem

• What is the unknown?
• What are the data?
• What is the condition?
• Can the problem be solved?

2 Assumptions

• What can you or need you assume?
• What shouldn’t you assume?
• Have you made subconscious assumptions?

3 Devising a plan of attack

• Have you seen this or a related problem before?
• Have you seen a similar unknown before?
• Can you restate the problem?
• If you can’t solve this problem, can you solve a similar or simpler problem?

4 Aftermath

• Are you sure of the solution? Can you see it at a glance?
• Did you use all the data? the whole condition?
• Can you get the same solution another way?
• Are there other valid solutions?
• Can you apply the solution or method to another problem?
• Was this a satisfying problem to solve?

I was lucky to have a different George, George Heilmeier, as my boss’ boss back when I worked at TI’s Artificial Intelligence Lab in the 80s, but I had no idea how famous or important he really was. I just knew he was cool.

From George Heilmeier’s method for solving research challenges:

• What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.
• How is it done today, and what are the limits of current practice?
• What is new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?
• Who cares? If you are successful, what difference will it make?
• What are the risks?
• How much will it cost?
• How long will it take?
• What are the mid-term and final “exams” to check for success?

Sign up for the Resilience Tech Briefing with no more than 2021 characters, zero images, and all in plain-text.