A Research and Analysis Based Approach to Problem Diagnosis and Resolution, Process Improvement, Risk Management, and Product and Service Development
Abstract
Presented is a forensic research and analysis problem diagnosis methodology for the purposes of accurate problem diagnosis, as a basis for process improvement , effective risk management, and innovative products and services. Forensic analysis?is based on gaining overwhelming evidence that reasonably supports the conclusion.?This approach requires not only gathering information sufficient to gain full details of the problem itself but also impacted systems. What systems theory teaches us is everything is part of a system. Doing research to not only understand the exact nature of problem but also to understand impacted systems permits?a thorough and exact understanding of?problem dynamics to better ensure a problem diagnosis that is both accurate and complete.
Misdiagnosis of problem root causes leading to process inefficiencies can lead to unplanned results including increased costs, shrinking market share, products and services that underperform, and even business failure. For example, “30% of annual healthcare spending in the United States, approximately $750 Billion, is wasted” due to misdiagnosis and other causes (“The Human Cost and Financial Cost of Misdiagnosis”. Retrieved from?www.pinnaclecare.com?). Products and services are vehicles consumers use to address problems. When understanding of consumers needs is inaccurate and/or incomplete, failure often results. Properly diagnosing problems is especially important for risk management. What risk is likelihood of a problem occurring that will lead to a negative consequence of some sort of problem is not properly managed by way of controls. By diagnosing problems and understanding their exact nature permits to verify that controls are robust and will contribute meaningfully towards minimizing risk of problem occurring. This approach permits proactively identifying as new business challenges occur, if systems in place can absorb the root causes of these challenges and permits identifying if systematic changes need to be made to address the problem while it is still small to mitigate risk of small problems blowing up into big, business crippling problems. This includes identifying and addressing risks associated with rolling out new products and services and problems with existing products and services by way of a proactive approach to identify and address problems before they occur as a way to mitigate risk of business failure resulting from failed products and services.?
?
Introduction
Methodologies such as Six Sigma Lean tend to limit focus on process analysis to whatever process is used to create the outcome and do not consider that process as to being a combination of many different systems interacting as to identify the exact nature of that interaction to be able to better identify actual root causes of problems driving inefficiency. By being mindful of the necessity of not only having a deep and wide understanding of process to be improved upon as a system to identify process problems driving inefficiency but also it being equally important to understand systems implicated by the process as a series of processes that are being made to interact in some way to achieve a goal of some sort through the process is needed to be able to gain an accurate picture?to determine whether increasing efficiency is a matter of tweaking the process or what is required is a complete overhaul by way of developing a new process or series of processes to replace the existing process as a way increase efficiency. Additionally, product and service development are a form of process improvement, which involves creating with a new and more efficient iteration of a product or service, or coming up with a completely new and unique solution to a problem.
In addition, in many cases problems have multiple root causes which must be addressed to fully remedy and control problem symptoms. Problems which share similar symptoms may have very different root causes. Compounding problem diagnosis requires sorting out variability inherent to impacted systems from variability in problem manifestation to differentiate signs of problems from signs of normal functioning, and also differentiating one root cause from another. Deep understanding of problem, problem symptoms, and impacted systems permits to be able to distinguish one root cause from another through differential diagnosis and pattern recognition, normal functioning from abnormal functioning, to minimize risk of a misdiagnosis. This problem diagnosis approach is normal to fields like psychiatry, psychology, taxonomy, auto repair, and medicine both veterinarian and human with a well documented history of success at achieving diagnoses that are both accurate and complete.
What is even more problematic is many problems what there is lacking in the body of knowledge is patterns of symptoms to look for to arrive at a diagnosis so it is up to the researcher to be able to solve for unknowns by doing data based research to find out what the pattern of symptoms is and how they reasonably contribute to the outcome as a way to develop a diagnosis. This goal is accomplished through data collection, finding out what symptoms keep popping up and figuring out how through reasoning things out how those symptoms reasonably contribute to the problem outcome, and then testing that theory out to verify findings by way of coming up with a test that is designed to rule out alternative explanation through an appropriate set of controls.
Compounding things is humans as systems go are extremely complicated, there are a lot of moving parts, variable in manifestation, how they work as systems is not intuitive and in fact intuition is typically wrong when it comes to how humans as a system work. Humans as a system are extremely complicated, variable in manifestation, when problems occur, actual root causes are typically hidden, and may be stemming from multiple root causes. What is even more problematic is there is a bunch of bad research out there which in order to be able to sort that out to know what to disregard, requires strong subject matter expertise. Humans are so complex as systems go that mastery requires years of study. Further difficulties are ?that there are still a lot of unknowns as to humans as a system requiring as issues come up, conducting basic research to understand related phenomena better. If it were easy, intuitive, and obvious to trouble shoot there would not be sociology, ergonomics, physiology, psychology curriculum at University. When troubleshooting and lack the proper expertise to correctly identify actual root causes of problems, which when humans are involved, subject matter expertise in human condition is required in order to get to the bottom of things, otherwise misunderstanding of the problem can result in solutions which do not properly remedy problems resulting in underperformance and potentially, business failure.
?Per?www.wikipedia.com, “voice of the customer?(VOC) is a term used in business and Information Technology (through?ITIL, for example) to describe the in-depth process of capturing customer's expectations, preferences and aversions.”?According to?www.Valuestream.com, “The main problem with voice of the customer is that most organizations fail to grasp the need and importance to correctly manage it.” Integral towards coming up with new products and services that are successful, new processes, and process changes that contribute meaningfully towards running an efficient business, is understanding VOC in a manner that is accurate and precise. This understanding permits to better identify exact nature of whatever problem that a product, service, and/or process is designed to address according?to its impact on customer, and what is reasonably required to for customer to solve problem,?to be able to accurately gauge what to provide to customer by way of a solution. Per?www.wikipedia.com, “voice of the customer?(VOC) is a term used in business and Information Technology (through?ITIL, for example) to describe the in-depth process of capturing customer's expectations, preferences and aversions.”?According to?www.Valuestream.com, “The main problem with voice of the customer is that most organizations fail to grasp the need and importance to correctly manage it.” Integral towards coming up with new products and services that are successful, new processes, and process changes that contribute meaningfully towards running an efficient business, is understanding VOC in a manner that is accurate and precise. This understanding permits to better identify exact nature of whatever problem that a product, service, and/or process is designed to address according?to its impact on customer, and what is reasonably required to for customer to solve problem,?to be able to accurately gauge what to provide to customer by way of a solution.
As part of collecting information to identify VOC, it is important to research and understand what customer’s capabilities are to be able to solve the problem as a basis for a feasible solution for customer that will contribute reasonably toward customer being able to solve problem. An example is a customer states they want an air conditioner for their house. What is determined is the underlying problem is hot weather and the?solution is a way to cool customer's house. Investigation may reveal that?customer cannot afford an HVAC system but can afford something like a ceiling fan so offer them a ceiling fan. Or, find a way?to make it such that customer can afford an air conditioner such?as a cheaper air conditioning?system. As this example illustrates, if research had not been done to identify customer’s capabilities, that customer could not afford an air conditioner would not have been found out to preemptively conclude that marketing an air conditioning system to customer will fail, running risk of taking actions leading into business failure. This example highlights importance of finding out customer’s actual capabilities to solve a problem as a part of addressing problem to proactively mitigate risk of failure.
Integral to a robust risk management program, the following processes are a logical extension of the discussed methodology:
1.?????Evaluate existing controls against understanding of problem(s) and impacted system(s) to be able determine how to best optimize control efficiency, including changing impacted system(s) in some way to reduce need for controls.
2.????Evaluate variability in system performance to identify hidden problems to develop controls for as a way to improve system performance.?
3.?????Engage in proactive evaluation of business challenges, both new and ongoing, to identify if current system(s) and its controls can properly absorb the challenges to determine if changes need to be made not just by changing controls, but also changing impacted system(s) themselves to better absorb challenges.?
?
Problem Diagnosis Methodology
1, Develop a preliminary statement of the problem or problems as to what outcome of problem is.
Cognitive bias and prejudices are useful as a starting point to evaluate a given situation or problem to understand it to identify how to best react to it . At the same time it is important to recognize biases and prejudices are assumptions based upon our previous experiences and may not hold true with the new situation. Where problems arise is when we don’t make adequate efforts to determine if our prejudices, assumptions, and biases hold true for the new situation. This failure to exercise due diligence puts creates risk for misunderstanding the problem or situation leading in making judgment call errors in how to respond that lead into maladaptive responses and improper remedies which can have severe negative consequences, such as failed products and services up to and including loss of life and business failure. Using bias and prejudice as a starting point for investing a problem must be merged into thinking objectively about a problem to generate a line of inquiry to see if initial thoughts are accurate or not through thinking objectively about situation. Of interest, being empathetic and thinking objectively are one and the same in that they serve the same purpose of requiring we exercise due diligence to verify that our biases, prejudices, and assumptions hold true, as a part of figuring out how to react to a given situation to?better mitigate risk of a judgment call error resulting from inaccurate understanding that can lead to negative consequences.
?What is required to be effective at thinking objectively and empathetically is being effective at emotional regulation and also being cognitively flexible. Emotions serve a valuable cue to figure out quickly how to react to a given new situation, based upon prior experiences with similar situations, Problematic is that a new situation is not necessarily the same as previous situations so previous responses may not be appropriate. For this reason simple reliance on emotion to behave in a reactionary manner can lead into judgment call errors that can have negative consequences including loss of life. Emotional regulation permits for effective emotional control to not get upset by new ideas/information and ideas/information that are in conflict with held beliefs/understanding to permit for more rational consideration to be open to new ideas by to be able to make a more accurate judgment calls on how to react to be able to respond more efficiently.
Being cognitively flexible permits to be effective at adapting to and shifting thinking to accommodate new information/ideas and reconcile them into an understanding that is logical and makes sense through reasoning things out. Insight is defined according to?www.bing.com?as “the capacity to gain an accurate and deep intuitive understanding of a person or thing”. Studies of mentally ill persons who are possessed of poorer ability to engage in insights conclude this is associated with reduced abilities to engage in effective emotional regulation and reduced cognitive flexibility.?Effective emotional regulation and also cognitive flexibility permit to be able to effective at reasoning things out?in a manner that leads to insights of the sort that lead to new, more accurate understanding of situations for more efficient reactions.
Tips and Tricks to Become More Empathetic
“5 Actionable Tips to Develop Empathy and Become a More Empathetic Person”. www.mavenhacks.net
Diamond, Jed. PH. D “Empathy and the Gendered Brain: 7 Things Men and Women Need to Know”. www.goodmenproject.com March 7, 2014
Fiste, Tod “Men, Emotional Communication, and the Challenge of Empathy”.?www.yourselfinbalance.com
“There Are Actually 3 Types of Empathy. Here's How They Differ--and How You Can Develop Them All” www.inc.com
Bariso, Justin “Understanding the Three Types of Empathy Can Help You Build Stronger, Healthier Relationships”.?www.mindmaven.com
?Tips and Tricks On How to be More Effective at Emotional Regulation
Ackermam. Courtney “ 21 Emotion Regulation Worksheets and Strategies”.?www.positivepsychology.com?February 7, 2021
?Wilson, Wade “Can People With Strong Emotional Ties to Their Beliefs Be Swayed Against Their Beliefs by Facts?”?www.quora.com?April 24, 2017
?
?Tips and Tricks to Increase Cognitive Flexibility
?“3?Ways to Improve Your Cognitive Flexibility New research sheds light on how we are resistant to change.?www.psychology.com
Dodge, Amanda “How To Improve the Cognitive Flexibility of Your Students:?Teaching Strategies”?December 31, 2019
?“7 Ways To Increase Your Cognitive Flexibility”.?www.mentalhealthdaily.com?December 3, 2019?
?Tips and Tricks for Being Objective
Derners,Jason?“Strategies for Making Objective Decisions”.?www.inc.com
The University of Syndney “Critical Thinking For University Success 4.2a?Identifying Biases and Assumptions“.?www.coursera.org
2.????Using brainstorming, determine what information is needed to gain full details and likely root causes and problem symptoms, and impacted systems, and research the matter further to gain a deeper understanding. Using adductive and inductive reasoning, determine what system(s)s are impacted by the problem(s).
Identify ad figure out what patterns of problem symptoms indicate about what systems are disrupted according to the following thought process:
1.????Reframe patterns of symptoms by way of being process(s) disruption of some sort. It is important to identify patterns of symptoms that keep popping up whenever the problem occurs, and then try to figure out what the pattern of symptoms point to by way of how they reasonably contribute to a diagnosis which is the problem outcome, and then create an appropriate test for the theory to verify findings and see what test results say as to whether or not the theory is correct. This is why it is critical to have a deep and wide knowledge of implicated systems to be able to know what symptoms point to by way of a diagnosis and also to know what to look for by way of presence of pattern of symptoms. This is why it is important to not only know about the problem as a process but also to identity impacted systems and break those systems down into a series of processes that are being interacted with in some way that is leading to the problem occurring.
2.????Identify systems being disrupted by problem and become an expert on identified impacted systems through research in current body of knowledge, exploratory research and talking to systems experts.
Collect sufficient background information in current body of knowledge, data collection, interviews, etc. to gain a full grasp of problem(s) as to possible root causes including symptoms of root causes, based upon what is already known. Explore problem in enough detail so as to become an expert on the problem based upon what is known. Explore this matter in enough detail through activities such as searches in current body of knowledge, talking to problem experts so as to determine what symptoms indicate about systems being disrupted be able to identify disrupted processes and becoming an expert on disrupted processes.??Identify relevant details in current body of knowledge and other information sources needed to formulate an educated opinion about the problem as to likely root causes and systems it impacts based upon problem symptoms, using differential diagnosis and pattern recognition.
?As a part of being successful at advocated approach requires becoming an expert on the problem and impacted systems by:
Talking to employees who have a lot of firsthand experience dealing with the problem as to problem root causes and all of its manifestations, doing research through data collection to gain sufficient examples to identify all of the problem’s symptoms, and all manifestations of problem.
?Talking to problem experts and reading up on what experts have?to say about problem as to root cause, impacted systems, symptoms of root causes, and all manifestations of problem.
?Review of the following Wikipedia page:?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human?indicates that when dealing with problems involving people, there are three areas of study that pertain to understanding of humans as a series of systems: Sociology, Psychology, and Biology. The following fields of study pertain to this: Psychology, Physiology, and Sociology, Ergonomics, and Human Factors/Ergonomics. ?Accordingly, central to any process improvement program is not just personnel who can analyze and collect data, and know how to do process improvement but also is personnel who are experts on all of the subject matter and links in the Wikipedia page on "Human" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) and also the topics covered in Human Factors in Engineering and Design" by Mark S. Sanders and Ernest J McCormick, who know how to do and evaluate research. (see also?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors_and_ergonomics) This is needed to have expertise in humans as a system and is also important as a part of evaluating the body of knowledge and conducting research to know enough about the subject matter to be able to sort out sound research and ideas from crap.?All of product and services is for use by humans, and processes involving humans require in order to better avoid unpleasant surprises means in order to figure out how to design such things and also identify problems hurting efficiency requires understanding humans in a?manner that is detailed enough to be able to gain an accurate enough understanding that will permit to able to accurately identify and gage what to do.
3. Collect a sufficiently large sample size that is representative of manifestations of problem to identify what presence of characteristics of individual samples keep popping up and try to identify through reasoning things out how the characteristics are associated with the problem in a manner that is logical and makes sense. Identify all of the different patterns of problem symptoms based upon what is known about problem, and do research in the current body of knowledge, talking to systems experts, and experts on the problem, to evaluate what the actual root cause(s) of problem is..
An ongoing challenge in solving many business and other types of problems such as in science is how to collect data that problem occurs in, in a manner that is economical, to be able to collect a sufficiently large sample to be truly representative of problem. This is a common reason why a lot of problems go unsolved and solutions for problems do not pan out because project owners don't know how to collect sufficient data set to get a representative sample in a manner that is not cost prohibitive and instead rely on things like statistics and math such as the monte carlo method to address shortcomings in their data collection practices. The monte carlo method was developed to address the problem of forcing data to make sense when it didn't make sense according to what was known about the subject matter being investigated. What should have happened is the researchers should have tried a little harder to figure out why the data didn't support current understanding of the subject matter and came up with a better test to investigate this problem further. What they did is instead forced the data to make sense and support current understanding through what amounts to an abuse of data analysis tools. The problem with use of statistics and math such as the monte carlo method to address this issue is that these analysis tools all assume a given sample size, typically small, is representative without any way to independently verify this assumption, which can lead down a bad path.
This issue is resolvable in many cases by getting creative about how to collect the data in a manner that is cost effective, typically through indirect means to be able to gain a sufficiently large data set that can be said to be representative of the whole population in a manner that is accurate. For example, in the call control case study example included in this article, problematic in trying to address this sort of problem for analysts is being able to collect any first hand knowledge such as recordings of actual calls in which consumers are abusive to be able to have sufficient data to analyze to try to figure out what happened that led to consumer being irate and abusive. What was done is an employee who processed calls collected the data by way of specific calls during which consumer was irate and abusive, to be able to ferret out a large enough sample size of calls during which the incidence of irate and abusive consumer behavior occurred that a representative sample was gained so the analysis could be done.
Come up with a test by way of identification of characteristics that permits to rule out alternative explanations that indicate a spurious relationship between identified characteristic and problem. Analyze the entire data sample for presence of the characteristic to see what percentage of the sample contains the characteristic and identify what this says about the nature of the problem. Keep analyzing data to identify all signs of problem and also possible root causes according to steps 1-3 in an iterative manner until you have come up with all schemes that lead to the problem outcome and correctly identified all root causes.
4.?Arrange information on problem to identify unknowns to be able to gain an exact understanding of problem root cause(s) using adductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning: ?Develop a process map to describe problem and impacted systems that is both accurate and complete using analytical methods such as process maps. This includes data collection, testing, and analysis to identify system unknowns.
Develop models of impacted systems through identification of:?
For example:
?5. Solve for system unknowns according to the following thought process using adductive, inductive, and deductive reasoning:???
?6.?Using adductive and inductive reasoning, verify educated opinion further by research in current body of knowledge, data collection, testing and analysis to perform differential diagnosis through pattern recognition, see if opinion holds true or false. If opinion is false, repeat steps 1-6.
7.?Using deductive reasoning and research in current body of knowledge develop solution(s) and test them out. If solution does not satisfactorily resolve problem, repeat steps 1-6 until solution(s) remedy problem in a satisfactory manner.
?
领英推荐
Case Study
Calls were studied in a customer care customer service call center to see if there was a way to handle calls differently to reduce incidence of problem symptoms: excess call escalations, abusive and irate customer behavior. This was as of interest to resolve as a way to reduce risk of increased operating expenses related to call escalations, litigation, increased employee attrition, and risk of business failure through decreased customer good will associated with this problem.
Accordingly, problem was described by its symptoms:
1.????Too many calls escalate
2.????Customers more often than not are abusive and irate
Based upon problem symptoms an initial assessment of possible root causes was identified as a basis for additional exploration that customers were behaving this way because this is their disposition.
Assessment was completed through research in current body of knowledge to identify components that comprise human disposition to be able to formulate an educated opinion about human disposition to see if the initial assessment was correct or not. The following components were researched along with characteristic symptoms identified that point to that a given person is, abusive, and unreasonable person, who typically reacts to other people by becoming irate: social behavior, psychology, sociology, morality, social norms, values, beliefs, resource management, aggression, psychological abuse, anger, cognitive bias, prejudice, negotiations, lying, interpersonal dynamics, reasonableness, reactivity.
Based upon preponderance of evidence in current body of knowledge and verified in call analysis through differential diagnosis and pattern recognition, it was determined that most customers who were behaving in an irate and abusive manner, and escalating calls were in fact nice and reasonable. What was concluded through deductive reasoning is that that most of the time, customers behaving in an irate, abusive manner, and escalating calls was a reaction to how the agent’s behavior made customer feel.
Research was conducted in current body of knowledge accordingly to identify call handling techniques to mitigate risk of identified problem in call handling occurring, as a way to diffuse calls. Solutions in body of knowledge were identified and tested out. Solutions helped somewhat but did not satisfactorily remedy problem symptoms, deeming it necessary to conduct an additional investigation to drill down further.
Additional root causes and symptom pattern sets leading to customers were behaving in an abusive, irate manner, and escalating calls were identified through research in current body of knowledge. The following root causes were identified:
Accordingly, call analysis through differential diagnosis and pattern recognition was completed to verify presence of the above additional root causes. A diagnostic tool was identified in body of knowledge for agents to use to determine how best to handle their customers to mitigate risk of abusive, irate behavior, and call escalations. Call handling methods known to be effective towards addressing these additional root causes were identified in current body of knowledge. Identified call handling methods and diagnostic tool were tested out and adjusted in an iterative manner through additional research in current body of knowledge until result of most customers behaving in a nice and reasonable manner and a satisfactory overall reduction in call escalations occurred.
?After call handling techniques were used for awhile, reductions of incidence of call escalations, irate, and abusive behavior occurred and stabilized, a significant additional reduction of incidence of these outcomes occurred for unknown reasons. Research in current body of knowledge with regards to frustration-aggression theory, frustration effect along with identification of behaviors that are known to diffuse phenomena detailed by these theories was completed. Call analysis through differential diagnosis and pattern recognition was completed to determine if new behaviors were present that are known behaviors effective towards diffusing abusive and irate behavior resulting from phenomena described by frustration/aggression theory and frustration effect, which?turned out to be true. The new call handling techniques were refined accordingly according to current body of knowledge, and tested out leading to same conclusion of additional stabilized reduction in irate, abusive customer behavior, and call escalations.
?
?Conclusion
Doing what is needed to become a systems expert can be expensive but does not have to be. It costs nothing except labor to do research on internet into problem(s) and impacted systems(s), data collection and analysis of situations in which problem is occurring for insights. This includes cost of time required to collect and analyze data such as feedback from employees who have a lot of firsthand experience with problem. For example, call handling program developed in case study cost @$1000 to develop, with all of the costs going into labor required to investigate the matter further by a single employee, who collected and tracked calls in which consumer was irate and abusive, with enough examples, that it could be said to be a sample size sufficiently representative of the population, who was an expert on call center customer service issues, human disposition, and driving factors for human behavior. Cost of developing program was completely offset many times over by reduced operating expenses from reduction in call escalations.?
?
References
Balonon-Rosen, Peter. “Report: Non-Academic Skills Are Key Ingredient To Student Success”.?www.nesca-news.com
Belot, Gordon “Objectivity and Bias”.?www.philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11599/1/OB.pdf
?Berk, M.A. et al. “Enhanced glycemic responsiveness to epinephrine in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus is the result of the inability to secrete insulin. Augmented insulin secretion normally limits the glycemic, but not the lipolytic or ketogenic, response to epinephrine in humans.” J Clin Invest. June 1985. V 75(6)
Boag, Elle M. and Katherine B Carnelley “Attachment and Prejudice: The Mediating Role of Empathy”. British Journal of Social Psychology November 9, 2015
?Chiodini, Iacopo et al. “Cortisol Secretion in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes” . Diabetes Care. 2007 Jan:30(1):83-88
?Cholle, Francis P. “What is Intuition, and How Do We Use It?” August 31, 2011. www.psychologytoday.com
?Clark, Marcia. "9 Problems with Self Diagnosis". May 28, 2020.?www.etactics.com
Cherry, Kenda “The Purpose of Our Emotions:?How Our Feelings Help Us Survive and Thrive”.?www.verywellmind.com.?May 17, 2020
?“Differential Diagnosis”.?www.medicalnewstoday.com
?“Follow 5 Steps to Make an Inference”. January 17, 2017.?www.smekenseducation.com
?Greer, Mark. “When Intuition Misfires”. March 2005. Vol 36, No. 3. www.apa.org
?“Health Care Providers Use Risk Analytics to Improve Their Financial Heath”.?www.optum.com
?
Helmreich, Robert?I. “On Error Management: Lessons from Aviation.” ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.go
Howard, Jacqueline “This is Why You Get Worked Up About Politics, According to Science”.?www.cnn.com?January 3, 2017
?“Inductive Research”.?www.singaporeassignmenthelp.com
“Insight“. www.bing.com
.Kahn, Merman et al. “Techniques of System Analysis” www.rand.org
?Legakis, Ioannis N. et al. “Decreased Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Fasting Levels in Type 2 Diabetes”.?Diabetes Care. Jan 26,2003 (1):252-252
?Loveday, Thomas et al." Pattern Recognition as an Indicator of Diagnostic Expertise". Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing.
?“Making Inferences”. www.courses.lumenlearning.com
?Miessler, Daniel. ‘The Difference Between Deductive and Inductive Reasoning”. September 23, 2020. www.danielmiessler.com
?McMahon, Mary. "What is Differential Diagnosis". October 19, 2020. www.wisegeek.com
?Neale, Graham et al. “Misdiagnosis: Analysis Based on Case Record Review With Proposals Aimed to Improve Diagnostic Processes”.?www.ncbi.nlm.nigh.gov
Parker, Tim?“Cognitive vs. Emotional Investing Bias: What’s the Difference?”?www.investopedia.com?March 18, 2021
?Pillay, Singray. "The Dangers of Self-Diagnosis". May 03, 2010.?www.psychologytoday.com
?"Problems with Voice of the Customer-VOC”.?www.valuestreamguru.com
?Roell, Kelly. “How to Make an Inference in 5 Easy Steps”. January 7, 2019. www.thoughtco.com.?
?Rubin, Eugene?M. D., PH.D and Charles Zorumski M.D. “The Importance of Insight: Many Psychiatric Illnesses are Associated With Diminished Insight”.?www.psychologytoday.com??April 7, 2016?
?Ruff, Bess. “How to Develop a Theory”. March 20, 2019. wikihow.com
?Sayama, Hiroki. Introduction to the Modeling and Analysis of Complex Systems. 2015. www.open.umn.edu
?Sharkey, Lauren. “Misdiagnosis of the “Big Three” Results in “Serious Harm””.?www.medicalnewstroday.com
?Smith, Benjamin Jones. “A Few Bad Scientists are Threatening to Topple Taxonomy”.?www.smithosianmag.com
“Social Determinants of Health”.?www.experian.com
?“The Human Cost and Financial Cost of Misdiagnosis”.?www.pinnaclecare.com
?Tobenam, A?and?R Dar?Marks “Advantages of Bias and Prejudice: An Exploration of Their Neurocognitive Templates”. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1999 Nov;23(7):1047-58
?Viera, Cinger. “Amylin: the Other Hormone You Don’t Produce in Diabetes” March 3, 2014. https://www.dhirubhai.net/redir/general-malware-page?url=www%2ediabetesdaily%2ecom
Vijay, Atul. “The Approaches to Reasoning for Research – Inductive vs Deductive”.?www.theskullsession.blog
?“Voice of the Customer”. www.wikipedia.com
?“What Is Cognitive Flexibility?”?www.mentalhealthdaily.com
?“Your Guide to Inductive Reasoning: Definition and Types” Examined Existence Team. www.examinedexistence.com