This website uses cookies to ensure that you have the best possible experience when visiting the website. View our privacy policy for more information about this. To accept the use of non-essential cookies, please click "I agree"
Tools
The working Core-Solve application brings the method together in one place: frame the dilemma, choose how you want to reason through it, examine the perspectives and decide what deserves further scrutiny.
Working modes
Core-Solve does not force every dilemma through exactly the same route. The two modes offer different levels of structure while retaining the same commitment to visible reasoning.
Useful when you want a clear, repeatable analysis and need the different perspectives kept distinct before they are brought together.
Useful when the central issue is still emerging, the evidence is incomplete or the most important question may not be the one you started with.
Using the tool
The quality of the result depends partly on the quality of the question brought into the system.
Explain what has happened, what must be decided and why the choice is difficult.
Include relevant people, practical limits, obligations, deadlines and known evidence.
Treat your first interpretation as a hypothesis, not as something the tool is expected to endorse.
The most useful outcome may be a better question, a missing fact or a risk that had not previously been visible.
What the tool produces
The dilemma is examined from distinct perspectives rather than compressed immediately into one verdict.
Each line of reasoning is connected to what it could mean for action, further enquiry or restraint.
Relevant intellectual frameworks are identified so the reasoning can be examined rather than treated as mysterious authority.
Agreements, contradictions, risks and remaining uncertainties are brought together without pretending that every tension has disappeared.
Best suited to
Core-Solve is strongest where several legitimate considerations compete.
More than one course of action can be defended, and each carries a different cost.
A decision still has to be considered even though some important facts or outcomes remain uncertain.
Duties to different people, values or objectives point in different directions.
A decision that appears sensible locally may create consequences elsewhere.
The reasoning behind the decision must be capable of being explained, questioned and reviewed.
The original question may itself be part of the problem and deserves to be challenged.
Begin
You do not need to prepare a formal case. Start with the problem as you understand it and allow the reasoning process to test that understanding.