Summary
Chapter 12, titled "The campus that was all spaced out," illustrates the complexities of problem definition through the story of a university facing a severe parking shortage. While the Student-Faculty Senate initially attempts to equalize the situation by removing most reserved spaces, the University President retains his spot, insulating him from the daily struggle of long walks in poor weather. The narrative splits into two problem-solving approaches: the students attempt to force the President to share their pain through civil disobedience and vandalism, which results in escalation rather than a solution. Conversely, a group of faculty members decides to reframe the issue by asking, "It's my problem," leading them to view the long walk not as a burden but as an opportunity for exercise and health. Ultimately, the chapter teaches that blaming oneself and altering personal perception can sometimes dissolve a problem entirely, even if the external circumstances remain unchanged.
The following detailed analysis explores the narrative arc, the specific problem-solving methodologies applied by the different groups within the university, and the philosophical lessons derived from their experiences.
The story is set on a newly established campus of a large state university. The core issue is one familiar to almost any modern institution: parking. The authors describe the evolution of this problem as a byproduct of success and expansion. Initially, the campus was endowed with a surplus of parking lots—essentially, it was "pretty much all parking lots".
However, a cycle of development created a squeeze on these resources:
The result was a classic resource scarcity problem. The "parking problem" became a central grievance for the campus community.
In an attempt to address the issue through policy, the Student-Faculty Senate took action. Their approach was grounded in a philosophy of "power to the people." They decided to eliminate all reserved parking spaces on campus, with two notable exceptions:
The Consequence: While this decision technically democratized parking, it did not create more convenient spaces. There were enough spots for everyone, but they were located far from the centers of activity—specifically, "one-half to one kilometer from office and classroom buildings".
To compound the inconvenience, the campus environment was hostile. The weather was frequently inclement, described by the authors as having three distinct seasons: "snow, mud, and dust". Thus, the "problem" shifted from a lack of spaces to the physical discomfort and time loss associated with commuting from the parking lots to the buildings.
The authors pause the narrative to pose a critical question to the reader: Whose problem is it?
The potential candidates for ownership of the problem include:
Through a process of elimination, the authors argue that the President does not own the problem. Because he retains a reserved space, he never personally experiences the frustration of hunting for a spot or the misery of walking a kilometer in the mud. He has the power to make decisions—he can even override the Senate—but he lacks the sensory experience of the problem.
This highlights a prevalent issue in systems design: "Designers and decision makers who don't experience the problems they're 'responsible' for". The authors draw parallels to other societal disconnects, such as a police commissioner with a chauffeur who doesn't experience traffic congestion, or automotive designers who drive new cars and never experience maintenance struggles.
The students intuitively grasped a fundamental problem-solving principle previously explored in the book (specifically by the workers in Brontosaurus Tower). The principle is:
"If a person is in a position to do something about a problem, but doesn't have the problem, then do something so he does."
The students engaged in a tactic designed to transfer the burden of the problem to the President, hoping that once he felt the pain, he would use his power to solve it.
Phase 1: Civil Disobedience The students began parking in the President's reserved space.
Phase 2: Administrative Escalation The President refused to accept the "shared problem." He viewed it as a challenge to his authority. He issued a decree that any student caught parking in his space would be "summarily dismissed from school".
Phase 3: Guerilla Tactics The students, enjoying the challenge, escalated their response.
The attempt to force the President to solve the problem resulted in a net loss of order for everyone.
While the students and administration were locked in a cycle of escalation, a group of faculty members attempted a different technique described as "thinking the unthinkable." They decided to answer the question "Whose problem is it?" with the first person singular: "It's my problem".
This approach is distinct from accepting blame or guilt. Instead of projecting the problem outward (blaming the government, the administration, or the lack of lots), they internalized it to see if their own behaviors or perceptions were the source of the friction.
Reframing the Problem: When the professors accepted the parking situation as "their problem," the definition of the problem shifted. It was no longer "There aren't enough parking places." It became a list of personal limitations and preferences:
By listing these internal barriers, the faculty members realized that the "parking problem" was largely a phantom problem—a discrepancy between perception and desire that could be resolved by changing the perception.
They rationalized that the walk could be beneficial rather than detrimental. They combined the necessity of getting to work with the desire for exercise. This cognitive shift allowed them to redefine their goal:
Implementation of the Solution: The faculty members altered their behavior and equipment to match this new definition:
The Outcome: For these specific individuals, the problem evaporated. They no longer experienced the frustration of circling lots or the anger of "wasting" time. They had reclaimed the time as productive exercise and leisure.
The chapter concludes by acknowledging that this solution was not adopted by the masses. Years later, most people were still circling the campus with "red, angry faces," burning fuel and fighting for spots. Only a few "battered ol' cars" belonging to the problem solvers could be found in the distant reaches of the lots.
However, the narrative drives home a crucial lesson for the problem solver:
"Try blaming yourself for a change—even for a moment."
By briefly assuming that the problem lies within oneself, one opens up a new domain of solutions that are entirely within one's own control. Unlike the students, who relied on changing the President's behavior (which failed), the faculty relied on changing their own behavior (which succeeded). This highlights that while we cannot always solve the "systemic" problem, we can often resolve the "misfit" between the environment and ourselves by adapting our own expectations and actions.