Tom Hirschfield’s Rules of Thumb for Solving Problems Effectively

Ten ‘rules’ a research physicist uses to come up with ideas and approaches for solving problems

I learned about Tom Hirschfield’s rules of thumb from A Whack on the Side of the Head by Roger von Oech. In the book, Roger said that he received an unusual letter and found it to be from a research physicist at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory named Tom Hirschfield. Tom wrote that he was a “student of how to solve problems effectively” and he shared the rules of thumb with Roger. The ten rules with a bit of my own explanation are as follows:

If you hit every time, the target’s too near — or too big.

Sometimes, when I play with kids, I like to play games like throw the ball into the bucket (simulating basketball) or play ring toss. Of course, I’ll put the target quite close to the kid so that it’s easy for them to hit but if they’re older, I’ll move it farther away so that there’s more of a challenge.

The inverse is also interesting: if you miss every time, the target’s too far — or too small. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t try to achieve impossible goals, but if you find that you aren’t even getting close, it might be time to re-state your goal.

Never learn details before deciding on a first approach.

This heuristic is about using your intuition. One of the questions I like to ask on my projects whenever we encounter a problem and have different options is “what does your gut tell you?” Mind you, my team likely has been in the details but usually there is an answer or an option the team is leaning towards.

If they’re really not sure, it’s a good way to know that either all of the options are bad or all of the options are equally good (and so not choosing or choosing, respectively may be easy).

Never state a problem to yourself in the same terms as it was brought to you.

I find that stating the problem in different ways helps with finding a solution. For example, one of the problems I had was a weed problem on my front lawns. One way to state the problem: how can I get rid of all of the weeds? Another way to state the problem: how can I not have to deal with weeds year after year? The answer to the second question helped me realize that I should replace the lawn with stones so I wouldn’t have to deal with the lawn (mowing, weeding, fertilizing).

The second assault on the same problem should come from a totally different direction.

Part of this is stating the problem in a different way (see above). Sometimes, it’s about taking a step back and thinking about how you might approach things differently.

One of the tasks I had at work was to input data from multiple Word files into a single spreadsheet. So with the task ahead of me, I got to work right away, tediously opening and copying the content from each Word file into a spreadsheet.

My coworker paused and did some preliminary research to see whether a VB script could do the same thing, but in a much quicker fashion.

If you don’t understand a problem, then explain it to an audience and listen to yourself.

The best way to learn is to teach someone else the same thing. So either you explain it to an audience and you get confused or you explain it to an audience and in so doing, you understand the problem better.

I also find it extremely useful to explain the problem to someone that is outside of the problem (could be a friend, your partner, your pet) in case you don’t have an audience.

Don’t mind approaches that transform one problem into another, that’s a new chance.

Sometimes a problem is too difficult to solve so you have to change the problem into another. In computer science, there’s a different group of problems (P, NP) where if you find the solution to one, you can find a solution to the whole group of problems.

Similarly, you can approach problems in the same way: the problem of engaging stakeholders could be transformed into a problem of communication. In other words, it might be easier to solve the problem of communication (keeping everyone updated, finding the right medium) than it is to solve the problem of engaging people.

If it’s surprising, it’s useful.

Surprises mean a gap in our knowledge, which also means that we may have learned something new. Think about when you’re surprised (birthday parties, reading a new book, finding your partner is into spicy food) — you inevitably come away with new knowledge and perhaps a new perspective of the situation.

Studying the inverse problem always helps

There’s a story about a city with a pigeon problem. The city had too many pigeons and they were looking for ways to eliminate pigeons so they didn’t have to deal with the constant mess. The problem was framed as “how can we get rid of pigeons”. You might even think about the problem and come up with different solutions — poisoning the food, pest control, introducing predators to the pigeon, etc.

One employee decided to study the inverse problem instead: how can we prevent the birth of pigeons. This led the city to their eventual solution: feed pigeons with seeds that have birth control.

Spend a proportion of your time analyzing your work methods

Sometimes, we are just so deep into the work that we’re not stopping to think about how we might do the work more efficiently (or maybe we don’t even think about whether we’re doing the right work!)

Pausing every once in a while to analyze your work methods helps you do this. Ask yourself:

• Are you doing the RIGHT work?
• Do I need to do this work? Can I delegate this? Defer it? Delete it?
• How might I automate this work? Is there a tool that will help me do this? Am I using the right tools?

If you don’t ask “Why this?” often enough, someone else will ask, “Why you?”

I can’t think of a specific scenario that brings this to light, but the heuristic’s underlying message is key: if you’re not asking questions and forcing people to consider different options, people will see you as a follower. The world doesn’t need more people to follow and execute strategies developed by others; it needs more people to develop the strategies and lead others.