This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Agile Buzz
by Laurent Bossavit.
Original Post: Problem-solving books
Feed Title: Incipient(thoughts)
Feed URL: http://bossavit.com/thoughts/index.rdf
Feed Description: You're in a maze of twisty little decisions, all alike. You're in a maze of twisty little decisions, all different.
The common thread in all these books is techniques for problem exploration and collaborative problem-solving, including when negotiation is difficult.
"Are your lights on" is a playful exploration of the general "problem solving" frame, including a very valuable definition of the term "problem" as "a difference between things as desired and things as perceived".
"Exploring requirements" is a more focused work on the discussions that happen around what the problem is. It starts with the "killer issue" of requirements, which is ambiguity. It includes a fantastic technique called "context-free questions". It has some advice on meetings effectiveness and some techniques for brainstorming, paving the way for a general requirements framework (which is probably overkill in agile contexts).
"Thinking for a change" introduces some diagramming tools from the "Theory of Constraints" discipline, which are particularly effective due to their emphasis on hidden assumptions; the Conflict Cloud in particular is of huge value, suggesting that in most project situations there is no such thing as a conflict, which I have found a powerful frame for resolving apparent conflicts. The book is somewhat long-winded but I still recommend it.
"Smart Thinking" includes a discussion of common causes of error, which is a very nice complement to the other topics above. It goes over a lot of the same ground as "Lights" and "Exploring" but in a different package; not as good a book but still recommended.
"Getting to Yes" is the reference book on win-win negotiations, including such great tools as the BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement), the "Hard on the problem, soft on the people" frame or the "Interests not positions" frame. Can be very handy when discussing paradoxical (or conflicting) requirements or constraints on time/scope/quality.