Discussion: View Thread

Subject: Systematic problem definition and solving:
3 questions
1. Attraction: Why are business people (management)
reluctant to (or hardly attracted to) systematic
approaches to problem definition and solving.
2. Why would management educators and innovators not
react to a challenge to check out a detailed description
of systematic problem solving (as opposed to "fuzzy /
creative" problem solving.
3. If there is a better way to make the mentioned people
react, what would this be?
Please respond to the list, not to the author.

General comment:
The past president of Ford Canada mentioned in public
statement (sense, not words):
"We get graduates from universities, we have to
teach them how to approach a problem cluster methodically,
and we have to teach them how to think to get results."

I have been reading this list for quite while and noticed
now and then discussions about the difficulty of persuading
managers (or students) to use systematic approaches to
problem definition and solving - independent of the field.
Luck and quantity dependent solution generators tend to
be favored (well known example: Orborn's Brain Storming).
While such methods do provide answers, they might often
storm past the high quality solution. High quality don't
necessarily come up in a flash of insight.
Sorting large quantities of idea flashes along some
criteria is time consuming. They still need to be
structured, combined, evaluated.
A systematic approach starts basically anywhere, then
generalizes the problem field, then researches for more
fundamental solutions, and their interrelations.
Results tend to be more integral, with less overlooked
problems (late surprises) at their interfaces.
Innovation - be this a product or a business structure -
depends heavily on recognizing trends, future
(so far unknown) needs, generating fail safe solutions
which will interface easily with current and anticipated
systems.
From the above it could be assumed that information about
know-how in reaching such objectives would generate a
strong desire to learn evaluate it. As stated at the
beginning, it appears that business people are not very
much attracted by such treasures. The question is why?
(Question 1)

There is an additional question: On
July xx (or there about)
an invitation to look at an example of a systematic approach
to problem solving was posted here. (MINT+MG-DV-XX).
The two lists have together more than 1000 subscribers.
So far there have been 2 responses (one of them was very
useful). This in itself is fascinating, because one list
is concerned with management education, the other list
is read by "innovative people".
It is fascinating why these two list did not generate more
responses. (QUESTION 2)

One reason could be the request of responding to the poster,
not to the list. The idea was to keep the list short,
involving only those who are interested. A digested version
was to be generated from the responses, to be made available,
or posted to the List. List cluttering should be avoided.
In this case the information can not be put into email.
Access to the information requires an internet browser.
Producing a digest instead of the multiple postings by
automatic responders seemed natural.
In your opinion, should the responses be made to the list
rather than to the poster?. (QUESTION 3)
Please respond to the 3 questions. Thank you.

Emil Zahner
Morphological Institute Canada
Website: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/
Evaluation
example:http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/pros01.htm

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 00:58:03 -0400
Emil Zahner <canmor@COMPUSERVE.COM>
asked:
>3 questions
>1. Attraction: Why are business people (management) reluctant to (or
hardly attracted to) systematic approaches to problem definition and
solving.
>2. Why would management educators and innovators not react to a
challenge to check out a detailed description of systematic problem
solving (as opposed to "fuzzy /creative" problem solving.
>3. If there is a better way to make the mentioned people react, what
would this be?

First, some background. May I suggest you look at VandeWalle, Don and
Cummings, Larry; A Test of the Influence of Goal Orientation on the
Feedback-Seeking Process, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, Vol 82, No
3, 390-400.
In brief, the journal article reports a study about goal orientation.
Very simply stated, some folks are learning-oriented and others are
performance-oriented. They seek feedback and are motivated to behave
based on where they fall on this continuum. With that as a background,
here are some thoughts, rather than answers:

1. Managers have succeeded -- or at least have received rewards for
success -- flying by the seat of their pants. It is the "lone cowboy" or
"test pilot" mentality of management. Managers are rewarded for results
and therefore are performance-oriented. Learning-oriented individuals
need time and resources to examine problems an potential solutions.
Moving at the speed of business does not allow adequate time.

2. I think educators teach known methods, what they have experience with,
what they can "back up" with objective evidence. They are not in an
innovative role. (Unfortunately!)

3. Yes. Senior managers must set the goal, put up the resources and pull
their organizations through a massive change process. Take a look at the
June 8, 1998 article on Jack Welch of GE in Business Week. GE is going
through a massive process to implement a Six Sigma Quality Program, based
on a very rigorous problem-solving and process improvement methodology.
They are spending millions of dollars on this program, but have been and
continue to get pay back in multi-million dollars in process
improvements.

Hope these thoughts add some grist for your mill.

Russ

C.W. Russ Russo,
Author: ISO 9000 & Services: Lessons From Registered Companies
Quality Resources, Inc. NYC, September 1998
Voice: 785-865-4306; Fax 785-865-4311
mailto:russ@charropubs.com

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Emil Zahner posed 3 questions. This comment addresses the first
question, and perhaps the second.

> 1. Attraction: Why are business people (management)
> reluctant to (or hardly attracted to) systematic
> approaches to problem definition and solving.
> 2. Why would management educators and innovators not
> react to a challenge to check out a detailed description
> of systematic problem solving (as opposed to "fuzzy /
> creative" problem solving.

Perhaps the framing of the question is a bit problematic, but also a bit
enlightening.

It is not business people (management) alone who are reluctant to
try or use systematic approaches. People in general appear highly
reluctant in this regard. The question thus becomes, "What differentiates
managers from other people with respect to trying or using systematic
approaches ...?" It also becomes "Why are people reluctant to try
systematic approaches...?" The issue of "try" or "use" is important, as
they are not the same. Your questions, together, imply "try" rather than
"use."

Managers could be considered to be less likely adopters of
systematic approaches for cultural and personal reasons.

Cultural reasons: Business culture tends to promote the novel solution
over the mundane, with novel solutions arising from novel approaches and
mundane ones arising from systematic efforts. The possible outcomes of a
systematic approach are seen as more limited than those of a "creative"
approach.

Personal reasons: individuals who regard themselves as managers may
believe they are being paid to be creative, to use their minds instead of
their bodies, when obtaining solutions to problems. Physical or routine or
systematic work should be done by lower-level workers, or robots if
possible.

Note that Deming included "an understanding of psychology" as one of the
four components of his "system of profound knowledge." He was a strong
advocate of systematic approaches, to help ensure systems thinking.

The Japanese appear to have the opposite problem! They
apparently wish to encourage greater creativity, after many years of
improving their systematic approaches to decision making. The "answer" may
thus lie in a different heuristic altogether: Don't use "creative"
approaches, don't use "systematic" approaches, but use "the most
appropriate" approach given the specific circumstances. (That in itself
could be regarded as a systematic approach...)

One key concept missing from your question is that of "newness." It is
apparent that you were referring to a very recent, "new," effort to
promote either systematic approaches, or one particular systematic
approach. This leads to another notion: The cycle of adoption of new ideas
or things. Initially, there will be very few "early adopters" or
innovators, and a far greater number of sceptics, those who prefer to
"wait and see."

Most people would thus regard anything new as being questionable. Managers
in particular are bombarded with new ideas from new gurus, and have grown
perhaps more sceptical than the rest of the population...

If you do hit upon a plan to attract people to systematic approaches, it
might engender a much higher response rate to your questions on the lists
as well - for the same reasons!

Best wishes, and please let us know more about what you are offering
(probably available on your Web site, but a two- or three-line summary
would be much more appreciated).

-- Andre' Everett


- Andre' M. Everett (PhD), Department of Management, University of Otago -
---- Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand; tel 64 3 479 7371/8125; fax 8173 -----
------------------- aeverett@commerce.otago.ac.nz

Emil Zahner <canmor@COMPUSERVE.COM> states:

>The past president of Ford Canada mentioned in public
>statement (sense, not words):
>"We get graduates from universities, we have to
>teach them how to approach a problem cluster methodically,
>and we have to teach them how to think to get results."

Traditionally, we don't teach thinking in school, so some students get it
naturally--learn how to think about thinking or metacognition. But
most students never do.

Try this easy test. Ask an employee how he/she got that last
creative answer, solution or concept. (most won't be able to tell you)
Now ask them to try it in a new context, ie. new problem domain
( most won't know how). Finally ask them to come up with a
second or third creative new concept or ideas that is dramatically
different from their first idea ( and you are likely to encounter a blank
gaze)


Thinking is hard work and takes time...many businesses don't
have the luxury...and then there is a new fire to put out.
Most managers are satisfied with the "first good enough" solution
that comes to mind as opposed to generating new-to-the world
alternatives and concepts....which often pose more secondary
problems.

>So far there have been 2 responses (one of them was very
>useful). This in itself is fascinating, because one list
>is concerned with management education, the other list
>is read by "innovative people".
>It is fascinating why these two list did not generate more
>responses. (QUESTION 2)


Several possible reasons: Summer time lull, email overload, many more
lurkers vs active participants, not an active issue with most etc

I'm finding that problem-solving (PS) and innovation have to be
put in context. Most clients ask: PS for what ? Most don't want
more generic approaches like "connect the dot exercises" or
motivational phrases like: "think out of the box."
[N.B. IMHO, I hate the term, because they never tell you how
to actually do it...most people who use the term, in fact don't know
what cognitive skills are involved--Walter Derzko]

I found the most success by applying PS straight to an issue
(such as competitive intelligence, issues management, environmental
scanning, product development etc) instead of trying to sell a generic
application like "problem solving" as a stand-alone. With an in-context
application, you must also decide which PS method and set of cognitive
skills are optimal. Most trainer can teach PS methods, but can't tell you
which ones to apply when and why now.



Walter Derzko
Brain Space
Toronto

Because if there is a programmable, systematic way to deal with the
"problem" it isn't a problem. Problems are fuzzy and require creative
thinking. BA

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998, C.W. Russ Russo wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 00:58:03 -0400
> Emil Zahner <canmor@COMPUSERVE.COM>
> asked:
> >3 questions
> >1. Attraction: Why are business people (management) reluctant to (or
> hardly attracted to) systematic approaches to problem definition and
> solving.
> >2. Why would management educators and innovators not react to a
> challenge to check out a detailed description of systematic problem
> solving (as opposed to "fuzzy /creative" problem solving.
> >3. If there is a better way to make the mentioned people react, what
> would this be?
>
> First, some background. May I suggest you look at VandeWalle, Don and
> Cummings, Larry; A Test of the Influence of Goal Orientation on the
> Feedback-Seeking Process, Journal of Applied Psychology, 1997, Vol 82, No
> 3, 390-400.
> In brief, the journal article reports a study about goal orientation.
> Very simply stated, some folks are learning-oriented and others are
> performance-oriented. They seek feedback and are motivated to behave
> based on where they fall on this continuum. With that as a background,
> here are some thoughts, rather than answers:
>
> 1. Managers have succeeded -- or at least have received rewards for
> success -- flying by the seat of their pants. It is the "lone cowboy" or
> "test pilot" mentality of management. Managers are rewarded for results
> and therefore are performance-oriented. Learning-oriented individuals
> need time and resources to examine problems an potential solutions.
> Moving at the speed of business does not allow adequate time.
>
> 2. I think educators teach known methods, what they have experience with,
> what they can "back up" with objective evidence. They are not in an
> innovative role. (Unfortunately!)
>
> 3. Yes. Senior managers must set the goal, put up the resources and pull
> their organizations through a massive change process. Take a look at the
> June 8, 1998 article on Jack Welch of GE in Business Week. GE is going
> through a massive process to implement a Six Sigma Quality Program, based
> on a very rigorous problem-solving and process improvement methodology.
> They are spending millions of dollars on this program, but have been and
> continue to get pay back in multi-million dollars in process
> improvements.
>
> Hope these thoughts add some grist for your mill.
>
> Russ
>
> C.W. Russ Russo,
> Author: ISO 9000 & Services: Lessons From Registered Companies
> Quality Resources, Inc. NYC, September 1998
> Voice: 785-865-4306; Fax 785-865-4311
> mailto:russ@charropubs.com
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>

Emil Zahner posts the following three questions:

1. Attraction: Why are business people (management) reluctant to (or hardly
attracted to) systematic
approaches to problem definition and solving.

2. Why would management educators and innovators not react to a challenge
to check out a detailed description of systematic problem solving (as
opposed to "fuzzy / creative" problem solving.

3. If there is a better way to make the mentioned people react, what would
this be?

The first question makes a sweeping assertion I don't accept. It is
certainly true of some business people but not of all and I doubt it's true
of most. Most business people I know are much more inclined toward
systematic approaches than creative ones.

The second question alludes to a challenge presented and apparently
ignored. It is very difficult to answer the question without first seeing
the challenge and knowing to whom it was presented.

Answering the third question hinges on having a whole lot more information
about the first two.

Frankly, it sounds as though Emil is not having much luck marketing a
systematic problem solving approach. It would be helpful to me if Emil
would say more about the approach.

Fred Nickols, Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service [09-C]
Princeton, NJ 08541
Tel = 609.734.5077 Fax = 609.734.5590
e-mail = fnickols@ets.org

Views expressed are the author's, not ETS's.

Barbara Austin wrote:

> Because if there is a programmable, systematic way to deal with the
> "problem" it isn't a problem. Problems are fuzzy and require creative
> thinking. BA
>
>

I'm wondering what has become of the "old" Kepner-Tregoe approach to problem
analysis? When I was in the corporate world, we studied, preached, and tried
to adhere to K-T processes as an aid to developing our critical thinking
skills. I know that K-T is probably dated, but my own experience is that
managers try to apply systematic processes wherever possible. perhaps someone
could comment on what has become of the K-T approach, and/or similar
methodology?
--
John P. Trebnik, Assistant Professor
Department of Business and Economics
Marian College
3200 Cold Spring Road
Indianapolis, IN 46222-1997
(317) 955-6037 fax (317) 955-6448

http://commerce1.marian.edu
mailto:jtrebnik@iquest.net

John - and others - the K-T approach is not entirely passe, even if some
have passed it by. Not too long ago I acquired a book, new to me, which
contain a great deal of material on problem-solving including much about
K-T. It appears to be directed more to engineering instruction, but much
is applicable to managmeent instruction as well, in my opinion. It is:

H. Scott Fogler & Steven E. LeBlanc, "Strategies for Creative Problem
Solving" Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall PTR, 1995. O-13-179318-7

I'm working at working it into my courses.

Tim Edlund, Morgan State University

On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, John P. Trebnik wrote:

> I'm wondering what has become of the "old" Kepner-Tregoe approach to problem
> analysis? When I was in the corporate world, we studied, preached, and tried
> to adhere to K-T processes as an aid to developing our critical thinking
> skills. I know that K-T is probably dated, but my own experience is that
> managers try to apply systematic processes wherever possible. perhaps someone
> could comment on what has become of the K-T approach, and/or similar
> methodology?
> --
> John P. Trebnik, Assistant Professor
> Department of Business and Economics
> Marian College
> 3200 Cold Spring Road
> Indianapolis, IN 46222-1997
> (317) 955-6037 fax (317) 955-6448
>
> http://commerce1.marian.edu
> mailto:jtrebnik@iquest.net
>

On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 23:34:57 -0400
Barbara Austin
quote:
"Because if there is a programmable, systematic way to deal with the
"problem" it isn't a problem. Problems are fuzzy and require creative
thinking."

Hi, Barbara:

Your comment suggests it might be helpful to the readership of the list
if I gave a brief definition of a disciplined or structured problem
solving/process improvement methodology.

Yes, I agree, "fuzzy thinking" is one good tool among many creative ways
to generate potential solutions to a problem or to identify a way to
implement an identified opportunity for improvement. However, fuzzy
thinking is a tool, not a structured way to solve problems or implement
improvements.

Perhaps the most simple methodology was introduced by Shewhart -- Plan,
Do, Check, Act. Also, the Association for Quality and Participation has
an excellent team-based methodology they promote.

Today many large companies are implementing a Six Sigma strategy that
includes a seven to ten step methodology to drive process improvements.
The steps include:
Clear describe the problem.
Identify stake holders
Define the scope of the project
Identify team members and their roles
Measure the "as is" situation
Identify the key causes
etc, etc.

Within each of these steps a number of useful tools, such as
cost-benefit, analysis, brainstorming, failure mode effect analyses, and
fuzzy thinking can be employed.

The value of such an approach is it helps managers use fact based
decision making.

Hope this helps.


C .W. Russ Russo, President
Author: ISO 9000 and Services: Lessons From Registered Companies
Quality Resources Press, September 1998.

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Russ Russo's response to Barbara Austin points out the continued dilemma
faced practitioners in framing and solving problems. I recall the old
(1958) typology of Thompson and Tuden. They suggested that there are four
approaches for solving problems depending upon whether or not the goals to
be acheived were agreed upon or not, and whether or not there was a clear
knowledge of means-ends relations. There four categories were:
Computational (where goals were agreed upon and there was a clear
ends-means relationship. These are the programmable problems for which we
develop algorithyms); Compromise (where there was knowledge but goal
disagreement); Jugdment(where there is agreement, but ends-means knowledge
is problematic); and Inspiration (where both agreement and knowledge are
doubtful).

Add to this, first Tversky & Kahnnemans' observation (Prospect Theory),
that people are risk adverse when the problem is framed as a gain, but risk
takers when the problem is framed as a lose; and second, Alan Filley's
observation that solutions often fall into three categories: Solutions
that are acceptable, solutions that are unacceptable, and solutions that
are not unacceptable. It is this third middle ground (as distinct from the
first) that is often the best that we can hope for.

Considering the above, is it no wonder that Russ and Barbara, based upon
their experiences, can reach very different conclusions about problem
solving. Is it no wonder that reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

Regards, Kim Boal








At 10:52 PM 8/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Jul 1998 23:34:57 -0400
>Barbara Austin
>quote:
>"Because if there is a programmable, systematic way to deal with the
>"problem" it isn't a problem. Problems are fuzzy and require creative
>thinking."
>
>Hi, Barbara:
>
>Your comment suggests it might be helpful to the readership of the list
>if I gave a brief definition of a disciplined or structured problem
>solving/process improvement methodology.
>
>Yes, I agree, "fuzzy thinking" is one good tool among many creative ways
>to generate potential solutions to a problem or to identify a way to
>implement an identified opportunity for improvement. However, fuzzy
>thinking is a tool, not a structured way to solve problems or implement
>improvements.
>
>Perhaps the most simple methodology was introduced by Shewhart -- Plan,
>Do, Check, Act. Also, the Association for Quality and Participation has
>an excellent team-based methodology they promote.
>
>Today many large companies are implementing a Six Sigma strategy that
>includes a seven to ten step methodology to drive process improvements.
>The steps include:
>Clear describe the problem.
>Identify stake holders
>Define the scope of the project
>Identify team members and their roles
>Measure the "as is" situation
>Identify the key causes
>etc, etc.
>
>Within each of these steps a number of useful tools, such as
>cost-benefit, analysis, brainstorming, failure mode effect analyses, and
>fuzzy thinking can be employed.
>
>The value of such an approach is it helps managers use fact based
>decision making.
>
>Hope this helps.
>
>
>C .W. Russ Russo, President
>Author: ISO 9000 and Services: Lessons From Registered Companies
>Quality Resources Press, September 1998.
>
>_____________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
>Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu

Kim, Russ and Barbara:

The suggested 'systematic' approaches you listed, all are better than nothing,
and usually better than what managers actually do, most of the time.

Still, to me, in all the lists, whether they are What, How, When, Where, etc.,
or the Kepner Tregoe process, or the old Fayol cycle with its many variations,
or Plan,
Do, Check, Act, or the Association for Quality and Participation's approach,
or the
Six Sigma strategy, etc. there are at least two significant shortcomings:

1. They are not only non-prescriptive, which is good I think, but also overly
vague, which is due to the fact that they are not based on a practical,
integrated, comprehensive model of the managerial decision making issues.

2. They all focus heavily on the technical aspects of the problem, decision,
or plan and fail to place equally strong emphasis on the non-technical people
aspects, and especially competence analysis/development, and climate
determinants. In these two, there are so many issues that most managers do
not face up to, because they don't know what to do or do not think of them
when they should. And, the 'systematic' approaches listed above do not 'lead
them to the water, let alone help them to reach it so they can drink from
it.'

On 7/27 I suggested the use of three questions, with great depth of meaning,
but which each manager can use immediately, based in her/his previous
experience and education) in my response to 'Ms' Kim (my apologies). These
questions contain such lead--them-and-help-them features. Though not
immediately apparent, they have much to offer to systematic problem solving.
In fact, so far, the hundreds of managers who have used them have invariably
found them to improve their decisions. Still, so far my posting has been
greeted with eloquent silence. If anyone is interested in more information, I
will be happy to respond, in a posting if the question is of general interest,
or in a specific e-mail response to a question directed at my address.

Erwin
Erwin Rausch; didacticra@aol.com; Tel: 908-789-2194; Fax:908-789-0038;
Didactic Systems, P.O. Box 457, Cranford, NJ 07016