Skip to main content

The “What If” Stage of Problem-Solving

1. Introduction. The setting is that you have a problem to solve. Not from the textbook, this problem is possibly open-ended and has no straightforward solution. It’s complicated, involving what you know and what assumptions you can make, constraints on resources you can use, and your time to solution. At the beginning, you consider what you can assume is true, you need to consider testing your solutions, and a host of other factors. Let’s look at the assumptions state. This is more familiarly called the "what if" stage.  It is a crucial phase in the creative and exploratory dimension of inquiry. It represents the moment when a problem-solver steps beyond what is already known to speculate, imagine, or hypothesize possibilities. It is driven by curiosity, imagination, and the desire to simplify and explore alternative explanations or pathways. Hopefully, you may discover you already follow these steps. Yet, in real-life problems they happen, almost always without an instruction manual.

2. Key Characteristics of the What If Stage. Let’s look at the key characteristics of the “what if” stage. They vary widely and require the cognizance of every serious problem-solver. Note, the “what if” stage is important not only at the beginning, but at each major milestone of determining solutions. Note that there is overlap among the six categories given. But, first things first, and that is to be certain the problem or project is absolutely clear, that all objectives are understood, that all variables are clearly defined, and all constraints are a part of problem thinking.

  1. Hypothetical Thinking. Problem-solvers begin asking speculative questions like:
    • What if this assumption is wrong? A must for all problems. Always challenge assumptions, if only for personal assurance.
    • What if we tried a different variable, method, or model? The most basic technique is to try something different when the usual stuff fails.
    • What if there's a connection no one has seen before? Finding all interconnections is within the domain of serious problem-solvers. These are determined piece by piece, often taking much time. Do not expect interconnections to spontaneously reveal themselves. They don’t. Be thorough.
  2. Creativity and Innovation. It is in this stage that novel ideas are born. The "what if" stage encourages thinking outside established paradigms, allowing problem-solvers to imagine breakthroughs that traditional thinking might miss. In this stage, the problem-solver sometimes uses the fast brain, sometimes called automatic thinking, to postulate possibilities, but must be aware of flaws.
  3. Theory Generation and Refinement. By posing “what if” questions, problem-solvers often lay the groundwork for new hypotheses, theories, or conceptual models that can be tested or explored. This is a deeper form of what-if and requires a solid background in the subject at hand. It is often within the domain of academics or researchers. Here, we may see thought experiments, wherein a entire program of research is constructed wholly within the mind.
  4. Bias. During this what if stage, it is important to remove bias from your thinking, as it distorts not only solution prospects, but also delimits your thinking. Bias offers what you think should happen when you need to think what could happen. Moreover, bias will reject a correct or even optimal solution. Bias, though not a “what if” per se, must be identified and neutralized at the onset of the problem-solving enterprise.
  5. Scenario Building. In applied or strategic problem-solving or research, “what if” helps model future scenarios, anticipate outcomes, or consider unintended consequences. Here, you need to consider how the solution will be used and importantly, the robustness of the solution, meaning to what breadth or extent the solution applies. For example, if you were to build a road and because of design parameters, it causes traffic jams at medium levels of traffic, this would be a non-robust solution.
  6. Problem Reframing. This stage may lead to redefining/reframing the problem itself. One way to understand this is by perspective, as illustrated below. We are all familiar with the adage, “Look at the problem from all sides.” A question that seemed intractable may be opened up by imagining it from a new angle. In many, if not most difficult problems, solutions may remain intractable until they are reframed, and sometimes bringing in new knowledge. Problem reframing may also reveal surprise or multiple solutions never conceived previously.

A cartoon of two penguins

Figure 1 Perspective

3. Examples. Hundreds of examples of that what-if stage are available, and in virtually every possible venue.

  • A physicist asks, “What if gravity behaves differently at quantum scales?”
  • The team leader asks, “What more must we learn to even understand the problem at hand?
  • The CEO asks, “Does building the factory near Atlanta satisfy all our requirements?
  • A historian asks, “What if we reinterpret this event from the perspective of the marginalized group?”
  • The programmer asks, “What if we used this algorithm in a different domain?”
  • The general thinks, “What if I attack their north flank? Then can I support my eastern troops?

4. Summary. All these points matter because they encourage open-ended exploration before narrowing down, help challenge assumptions to avoid confirmation bias, and anticipates breakthroughs in the entire process.  The "what if" stage is the spark of discovery — the moment the mind takes risks and leaps. It is essential for hypothesis formation, creative design, and transformational insight. While not always bound to immediate answers, it lays the foundation for meaningful and original problem-solving.

 Finally, the what-if stage is present throughout the problem-solving event, where at each step of the solution, the what if question is continually posed. Even in our daily lives, most of us are always asking what if for work problems, personal relations, faith, and right down to the mundane, “What if I run out of gas on the freeway?”

 

 

 

©2025. G Donald Allen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I.                                       I.                 Introduction.                Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II.     ...

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

   The principles we use but don't know it.  1.      Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...

The Lemming Instinct

  In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...