How to make Soduko boring - Follow the Process

I spend a lot of time travelling to and from client sites, and when I travel I often pass the time by playing Soduko on my iPhone (I use a very good version from Mighty Good Games).  Once apon a time I relied on the paper versions in the airline's magazines - but the iPhone app is now my norm.

One incentive for playing Soduko was to keep my little grey cells from getting lazy - but it also a fun way to pass the time, so I was rather surprised last year when my friend Roberta told me that she had given up the game after just a few months of playing. According to Roberta - who is a math teacher - the game wasn't challenging any more.  She'd figured it out, and the puzzles were no longer puzzling.

My first reaction to Roberta's statement was typical for me - I just assumed that the Soduko puzzles she had access to weren't "hard enough".  Many, many times I would finish a flight with an unfinished puzzle from the American Way Magazine staring me in the face.  I certainly hadn't "figured out" Soduko.

Then in March I saw an article in USA Today about J. F. Crook and a Soduko "solution".  Crook is a mathematician, but his "solution" isn't a mathematical proof - it's a series of steps.  I'm a process guy - so when you say "series of steps" I say "process".  Crook had published a process definition for solving any Soduko puzzle.

I read Crook's process definition, and it wasn't that far from recommendations that I has seen earlier.  Soduko puzzles are grids of 81 squares, nine across and nine down. Some boxes have a number filled in; the rest are blank. Players must fill in the blank squares with numbers between 1 and 9 without repeating any numbers in a row, column or the nine interior 3-by-3 boxes of the puzzle.

Crook's Sudoku Solving Process can be summed up as follows:  Mark all the squares in the puzzle that could be a "1" - Based on "what could be a 1" apply some simple rules to "solve" a few squares.  Repeat this process for numbers 2 thru 9.  Crook admits that you still may find some sqaures that might be one of two numbers, but you just "guess"  a number for that square and proceed until your guess is either confirmed or invalidated.

The problem with Crook's Process is that it's really tedious. While solving a Sudoku puzzle you'll often have insights or spot patterns that lead you to solutions for a whole bunch of squares at one time.  Consequently, when I read Crook's Process I said to myself "That's nice" and went on solving my puzzles the same way I always had.

My method for Soduko was to "solve" the obvious squares first, then scan the whole puzzle looking for the less-obvious relationships between the squares.  Using that rather random process I could solve many "Moderate" puzzles in ten to fifteen minutes, but I was also frequently left with puzzles that I just couldn't crack.

When I switched from paper Soduko to iPhone Soduko I initially followed my old-but-not-reliable process... but the iPhone apps features opened my eyes to "the better way".

With paper and pencil it's really messy to follow Crook's Process.  There's a lot of erasing that goes on, and it's really easy to make mistakes.  With the software version I can mark/unmark squares to my heart's content without reducing the legibility of the puzzle.  The software version also immediately flags my mistakes, so I don't multiply those mistakes by contiuing on with bad data driving my subsequent decisions.

A little bit of software can make it a lot easier to follow a process - Who would have imagined that? :-)

Even with my new found ability to make notes on the puzzle - I still stuck to my old process for the most part.  I's use my process to solve as much as I could, and then resort to Crook's process... and sure enough I would still get stuck with puzzles that I just couldn't solve.  This didn't happen often, but it happened.

I should mention that up until this time I was limiting myself to the "Moderate" puzzles on my iPhone. It's very unsatisfying to have an unsolved puzzle when my plane lands, so I stuck to the relatively easy ones for the most part.

On a recent flight I decided to tackle an "Expert" Soduko puzzle - and it was a bear.  I was so intimidated that I followed Crook's Process.  I diligently marked all the "1's", then the "2's", etc. and sure enough in 30 minutes I had solved the puzzle.  I tried again with a new puzzle, and sure enough, in 30 minutes I had solved that one too.

Since that time I have improved a bit, I'd say my average is about 25 minutes, but sure enough I can solve any puzzle as long as I keep to the process.  Just like Roberta, the puzzles aren't really puzzling anymore.  Give me 30 minutes and I will solve the puzzle.

The trade-off here is that I won't be able to solve any puzzle in less time.  The process is tedious and it's not easy to speed it up.  I sacrifice "brilliant flashes of insight" for dependable, predictable, and plodding.  The process makes Soduko boring.

As always I have to turn this experience into an analogy for the domain of Managed Business Processes:  I could have followed Crook's Soduko Solving Process all along - but a little bit of software really made the process easier to follow. Software made each step of the process easier, but it didn't force me to stick to the process - If the software had managed the process (forced me to stick to the process) I would have achieved the goal of consistently solving Soduko puzzles sooner.

You might be saying - "Yeah, but it also made it boring".

That's certainly something to consider when introducing a Managed Business Process into your organization... We don't want to turn our process participants into mindless drones.  We don't want to lessen the importance of creativity and insight - but we do need to make things more predictable and insure success.  Finding the balance between predictable process and bored employees in your organization is a puzzle that won't ever get boring.