The Resolution Problem
A team presents their background work. They've documented the situation. They've described what's happening. They've written a clear summary.
But when you ask "Have you seen it yourself?" they hesitate.
"Well, no, but the report is very detailed."
That's when you know they're operating at low resolution. And low resolution evidence creates low resolution understanding.
Good background work isn't about volume of information. It's about resolution of evidence. The clearer and more direct your connection to reality, the better your foundation for problem-solving.
Here's what most people miss: all evidence is not created equal. Words are fundamentally different from objects. Descriptions are fundamentally different from observations. Second-hand accounts are fundamentally different from first-hand experience.
Understanding these differences is what separates good background work from weak background work.
The Resolution Hierarchy
Think of evidence quality as a resolution scale, like the difference between a blurry photo and a high-definition image.
Low Resolution: Spoken and Written Words
Someone tells you about a problem. You read a report. You review an email summary. You listen to a description during a meeting.
This is how most background information starts. It's not useless, but it's inherently low resolution. Words are abstractions. They're someone else's interpretation of reality, filtered through their perspective and vocabulary.
"We have a connecting rod defect problem."
That sentence contains almost no useful information for understanding the actual situation. It's a label, not evidence.
Higher Resolution: Actual Objects, Images, Data, Drawings
Now someone shows you the defective connecting rod. They show you the quality standard. They show you measurement data. They show you the engineering drawing with the tolerance specification.
This is significantly better. You can see the actual object. You can examine the actual data. You're no longer relying purely on verbal description.
"We have a problem holding the 50 micron tolerance. Here is an example of the part and the quality standard."
The resolution has improved dramatically. You can now visualize the gap between current state and standard.
Highest Resolution: Genchi, Genbutsu, Genpo
But you can go further. You go to the actual production line. You stand at the specific stations where defects are being produced. You observe the actual method being used. You see the process capability data displayed at the workstation.
"Process Cpk has plunged to 1.00 and stations 2, 3, and 5 are now locked out by quality due to process incapability."
Now you're at the scene. You can see stations 2, 3, and 5. You can observe what's actually happening. You have the highest resolution view possible.
Notice the pattern: each level adds specificity and directness. Each level moves you closer to reality and further from abstraction.
The "Gen" Principle
In Japanese, there's a prefix that appears throughout lean thinking: "gen" meaning "actual."
Genba - the actual place
Genchi - the actual specific location
Genbutsu - the actual object
Genpo - the actual method
This isn't linguistic coincidence. It's a philosophical commitment. Good evidence comes from actual things, not descriptions of things.
When you're clarifying background, always push toward "actual":
- Actual objects, not descriptions of objects
- Actual data, not summaries of data
- Actual drawings, not verbal explanations of specifications
- Actual people who experienced the problem, not third-hand accounts
- Actual observations, not assumptions about what's probably happening
The more "actual" you can make your evidence, the higher the resolution of your understanding.
Context Determines "Good Enough"
Here's the practical reality: you can't always achieve highest resolution for every problem.
For easier problems or issues that have happened repeatedly, you can sometimes get away with less resolution. If the same sensor fails every month in the same way, you probably don't need to go stand at the sensor every single time.
But here's my advice: you should still check in person. Even familiar problems can surprise you. Maybe this month's failure looks the same but has a different cause. Maybe something in the environment has changed.
The real danger comes with hard problems. These are the ones that fool you.
Why? Because hard problems don't yield to your first hypothesis. Your self-generated theory about what's happening is usually wrong in the beginning. It's wrong because you're operating on assumptions, not facts.
Low resolution evidence lets you maintain comfortable assumptions. High resolution evidence forces you to confront uncomfortable facts.
That's why difficult, complex, or unfamiliar problems demand the highest resolution evidence you can gather. You need to override your brain's tendency to jump to conclusions based on pattern recognition from past experience.
The Common Mistakes
People mistake documentation for evidence all the time.
A PowerPoint slide with bullet points describing the problem? That's low resolution.
A PowerPoint slide with embedded images showing the actual defect? That's higher resolution.
Standing at the actual workstation with the actual defective part, looking at actual process data? That's highest resolution.
The format doesn't determine quality. The directness of connection to reality determines quality.
I've seen elaborate presentations with dozens of slides that contain almost no actual evidence. And I've seen single-page summaries with photos, sketches, and data that provide crystal-clear understanding.
Second-hand accounts feel like evidence but they're not. "The operator told me the machine makes a noise" is very different from "I stood at the machine and heard the noise myself and recorded it."
Summary reports feel comprehensive but they're abstractions. "Scrap rate has increased 40%" is different from "Here are the actual scrap parts from last week showing the specific defect patterns."
The question to always ask: "Am I looking at reality, or am I looking at someone's interpretation of reality?"
The Detective Standard
Think of background work like detective work at a crime scene.
Detectives don't solve cases by reading reports in the office. They go to the actual scene. They examine actual evidence. They talk to actual witnesses. They take actual measurements.
Only after gathering high resolution evidence do they start forming theories about what happened.
The same principle applies to problem-solving. Before you can define the problem clearly, before you can analyze root causes, before you can develop countermeasures, you need to establish high resolution understanding of the situation.
That means getting as close to genchi, genbutsu, and genpo as possible. Actual location. Actual objects. Actual methods.
Yes, this takes more effort than reading a report. Yes, it requires going to see things firsthand. Yes, it means bringing actual evidence to meetings instead of just talking about problems.
But that effort is what separates good background work from weak background work.
What Good Looks Like in Practice
When someone has done good background work, you can tell immediately:
They can show you actual objects or clear images of them. They can point to specific locations on drawings or maps. They have actual data, not just summaries. They've talked to actual people who experienced the problem. They can describe what they personally observed, not what they heard about.
Their evidence has weight and specificity. It's concrete, not abstract.
When someone has done weak background work, that's also obvious:
Everything is verbal description. They're working from second-hand or third-hand accounts. They haven't seen the problem location themselves. They're operating on assumptions about what's probably happening. Their evidence is all low resolution.
The gap between these two approaches is enormous. One creates a foundation for effective problem-solving. The other creates a foundation for confusion, misunderstanding, and wasted effort.
Start With Resolution
The next time you're clarifying background for a problem, ask yourself: "What's the resolution of my evidence?"
Am I relying on words? Can I get actual objects, images, or data?
Do I have actual objects and data? Can I get to the actual location and see the actual method?
Push yourself up the resolution scale as far as practical for the problem you're facing. Easy problems might not need the highest resolution. Hard problems absolutely do.
And remember: the goal isn't perfect documentation. The goal is direct connection to reality.
High resolution evidence gives you high resolution understanding. And high resolution understanding is what makes every subsequent step of problem-solving more effective.
Good background work is actual work. It requires going, seeing, touching, measuring, and observing.
But that's what good looks like.