Solve, Resolve, or Dissolve¶
Definition¶
Ackoff separates three ways a decision maker can dispose of a problem, each answering a different question. To solve it is to find the values of the controlled variables that maximize the outcome — to optimize. To resolve it is to pick values that are merely good enough — to satisfice. To dissolve it is to change what you value so that the original choice stops mattering at all: "he may dissolve the problem. This is accomplished by changing his values so that the choices available are no longer meaningful." Ackoff notes we use "solving" loosely to cover all three, which hides how different they are.
In the Book¶
Chapter 1 introduces the distinction right after Ackoff's formal model of a problem — a specified relationship between controllable and uncontrolled variables that produces an outcome, subject to constraints. He illustrates dissolution with the example of choosing a new car: instead of optimizing which car to buy (solve) or picking an acceptable one within budget (resolve), a person can dissolve the problem entirely by deciding public transportation is better than driving, or by moving within walking distance of work — the choice among cars simply stops being a live decision. This sets up a running theme of the book: many organizational and personal difficulties persist not because no one can solve them, but because everyone keeps trying to solve or resolve a problem that a change in objectives would have made disappear.
Why It Matters¶
The three-way split forces an explicit choice of ambition before any analysis begins: chasing the optimal answer, settling for adequate, and removing the underlying tension are different projects with different costs, and conflating them wastes effort — most visibly when people grind at optimizing or satisficing a problem that a change in goals, values, or scope would have dissolved outright. It is a cheap diagnostic to apply to any stuck problem: are we trying to solve this, or should we be asking why it's a problem for us at all.