Rush hour is frustrating. Ever wish you could drive a tank to work?

Imagine driving to work in a M1A1 Main Battle Tank, also called an Abrams tank. It has tracks instead of wheels, and it can go absolutely anywhere. It can roll over obstacles 42 inches high. It can cross trenches 9 feet wide. It can go up a 60 degree slope. And due to its almost impenetrable armor, its 120mm main gun, and three auxiliary machine guns, it can traverse the most hostile environments. An M1A1 main battle tank can go almost anywhere on land, including the freeway. So why use a car to go to work, when cars accommodate only a small subset of terrains?

One reason is that the M1A1 gets less than 1 mile per gallon of gas. Working only 10 miles from home, you'd pay $150/week in fuel alone. On those rare occasions when the freeway travels full speed, the M1A1's 45 mph maximum speed is a liability. At a length of 32 feet, one inch, a height of 9.5 feet, and a width of 9.5 feet, parking is a problem.

There's no doubt the M1A1 can get you to work. But your friends driving Chevy Luminas get there faster, cheaper and more conveniently. Yes, the M1A1 can go anywhere, but that ability is costly indeed.

Reminds me of companies selling general problem solving training to those requiring electronic, mechanical or computer Troubleshooting.

Mechanical, electronic and computer troubleshooting is a subset of problem solving. Machines and automated systems are well defined systems. By that I mean they have a documented and well defined state and behavior. Fixing them requires only returning them to their as-designed state and behavior. You needn't analyze the solved state, with its heavy design and creative thinking requirements. You needn't ask how you want the machine to perform after repair -- you already know that. It must perform as designed. You needn't ask if there's some better way you can do it. All that's necessary is to get it back to its as-designed state and behavior.

Some training vendors are all too happy to sell you a generic problem solving course for your technical people to use on machine/computer/software problems. Such generic problem solving methodologies contain several time consuming steps necessary only to design the solved state (which degenerates into the as designed state and behavior for machine, computer and software problems). The vendor might justify this by mentioning that the generic problem solving methodology can solve all problems, including those of machines, computers and software. They're telling the truth, and it's about as practical as trading in your car for an Abrams tank.

If you want to win, you go to war in a tank and the office in a car. If you want to win, you fix technical problems with a Troubleshooting Process optimized for technical problems, and fuzzily defined problems with a generic problem solving methodology. If a person solves both types of problems, train him in both methodologies.

So the question you need to ask is this: How would it affect my business if my competitors used more optimized Troubleshooting methodologies than my company?