Doors versus Wheels: a Systems Study

The current internet argument du jour is a wonderful example of a systems analysis question with all the challenges intrinsic to such work. So, I thought I’d take this opportunity to explain a systems analytic approach to the problem of the day. For those of you who do not spend your time indulging in such debates as “Trebuchet v. Catapult” or “What color is this dress,” the most recent lighthearted, but deeply felt debate to take the internet by storm is this question: “Are there more doors in the world or more wheels?”

This seemingly inconsequential question has sparked thousands of posts across multiple platforms, dozens of articles, and 150+ million impressions. So, why I am, a purportedly serious systems analyst, joining the throng in writing about such a trivial topic?

Doors versus Wheels represents the kind of question we are often asked as systems analysts: it is easy to ask and hard to answer. By proceeding through the steps we’d take to answer this question, it is possible to chart a path for many systems studies. ?

Those of you who are familiar with systems analysis will realize that we begin our studies back to front. We begin by asking “what this answer be used to do?” In fact, there is no use case for answers to this type of internet question. They are intended to spark discussion and their purpose lies in the fun of debate. But let us imagine, for the purpose of this article, that the answer is necessary. We have been asked to provide a definitive finding to the Doors versus Wheels controversy for the good of the internet.

Having identified our purpose, we must next acknowledge that the question is poorly specified. (This is often the case at the beginning of real studies.) To answer whether there are more doors or wheels, we must define what our questioner means by a door and a wheel. Note that I say “questioner,” because my personal definition of a door or a wheel is not important. As systems analysts, we provide answers to questions scoped for our client’s context. Our own context takes a back seat.

In this case, our definitions must have validity for internet users. That is a vast and heterogeneous group, so we should find definitions that are widely accepted. We must also identify any important edge cases that are part of the current debate (e.g., are bearings wheels, do windows count as doors, do non-functional wheels and doors count toward the totals). Now we present our definitions of “wheel” and “door” as well as our rulings on edge cases and the reasoning to support them. We also sent bounds around question. For example, we are concerned only with door and wheels on Earth, within the atmosphere, at the present moment. Alien doors and wheels are out of scope, as are the lost doors of ancient cultures.

Our problem statement might look like this:

We will answer the question “are there more wheels or doors inside the Earth’s atmosphere today, March 20, 2022? Given that a wheel is a device that rotates 360 degrees in order to move either itself or an object to which it is affixed, and a door is a moving barrier that serves as an entrance to an enclosed space.”

Based on those definitions we rule that bearings are wheels. Windows are doors only when the serve as entrances. Finally, non-functional wheels and doors do not count toward wheel and door totals. We offer to discuss the logic behind those decisions in an appendix, footnote, or back up slide and move on.

Having successfully scoped our problem, we now proceed to develop techniques for answering that question. Some options here include sending out surveys, asking subject matter experts, examining manufacturers manifests from relevant time periods, developing world simulations, or investing heavily in wheel and door counters. No data collection method will be perfect; all will involve trade-offs. Which one we pick would depend on our study’s budget, timeline, and available resources as well as our client’s preference.

But that’s it. That’s how you answer “doors v. wheels” as a systems study.?