In This Issue...
Angles With Rotary Wings
Reality Mirrors Movie
Mentoring
Aikido
Stop The Merry-Go-Round

Features...
Peter Block Column
Views for a Change
Pageturners
Briefcases
Diary of a Shutdown

Views for a Change
Consultant Q&A

David Farrell Responds :

--
--My curiosity drives me to wonder if the organization applied the “10-step structured, problem-solving approach” to address the very problem raised by this month’s question. If not, the inquiry into root causes could begin right there. As we all know, effective solutions are targeted at the removal of root causes.

--My experience, that effective solutions require the appropriate amount of rigor in problem-solving methodology, drove me to apply it here. Although I used a cause and effect diagram applying my experience with difficulties in implementing organization-wide, problem-solving discipline, space limitations here caused me to display the results in a “fault tree” format rather than a fishbone. It came out this way:

--EFFECT: “Not many people use our 10-step structured problem-solving approach.”
--Data: Only anecdotal was provided; consider collecting hard data or conducting a user survey.

--POTENTIAL CAUSES:
--People: The process is not perceived as adding value: “I already know what the solution is,” “I don’t know how to use the problem-solving process,” “I don’t know when to use it and when not to.”
--Mental laziness: “I don’t like the 10-step problem-solving process.”
--Process: Perceived as inflexible; no recognition for using it; the 10-step process is overly structured, hard to learn, hard to remember, takes too long and doesn’t add value.
--Measurement: There is no proof that using it adds value; hard data does not exist on causes or on results.
--Culture: Quick fixes are rewarded; fire-fighting is rewarded more than fire prevention.
Management does not use the process itself. Management does not expect/encourage/demand that others use it.

--POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS: (Based on those causes, your data will help you identify those most likely to be effective with your organization.)
--1. It may well be that having only a problem-solving model, and a complex one at that, may in fact be overly complex. Start with the process itself. Develop alternative models so that the appropriate degree of rigor can be applied based upon the complexity of the problem and the risk associated with a bad solution. (Notice that a simple 4-step approach is used here.)
--2. Create easy-to-follow visual aids for alternative approaches and provide training on when to use which one.
--3. Encourage management to model desired behavior. Facilitate/coach senior management problem-solving sessions on critical organization problems. Problem-solving methodologies represent a mental discipline, a way to think; they help organize thinking, not replace thought. Encourage management to require subordinates to present recommendations and solutions in a format that includes appropriate levels of data and cause analysis.
--4. Collect data on the entire timeline from problem awareness to effective implementation of solutions. All too often it appears that shooting from the hip is quicker, but rarely is the time through to implementation, not just solution identification, taken into account.
--5. Publicize results and provide recognition not only for those results but also for use of the good process.
--6. Investigate compressed problem-solving approaches. Many organizations have used “rapid” or “express” models which employ pre-meeting data collection, extensive co-processing and rigorous facilitation to accomplish extraordinary results on complex problems in half-day sessions. And finally . . .
--7. Make it fun! Every study of creativity I’ve seen stresses the correlation between having fun and the ability to think outside the box. You, and your people, will find solutions they might not otherwise have dreamed of.

John Runyan responds:

Return to March 2000 News for a Change Homepage