I am sorry about posting this to the group. Could some-one please let me
know how to withdraw from this mail list or withdraw me? Thanks
Deb
At 00:41 27/07/98 -0400, you wrote:
>There are 5 messages totalling 420 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
> 1. Systematic problem definition and solving (4)
> 2. Systematic problem definition and solving-more theory
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:56:33 +0000
>From: Andre' Everett <
aeverett@COMMERCE.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
>Subject: Re: Systematic problem definition and solving
>
>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 ------------------------
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 10:31:08 -0500
>From: "C.W. Russ Russo" <
charropubs@JUNO.COM>
>Subject: Systematic problem definition and solving
>
>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]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 20:15:47 -0700
>From: Walter Derzko <
wderzko@PATHCOM.COM>
>Subject: Re: Systematic problem definition and solving
>
>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
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 20:34:53 -0700
>From: Walter Derzko <
wderzko@PATHCOM.COM>
>Subject: Re: Systematic problem definition and solving-more theory
>
>[from Measuring the knower: Towards a theory of knowledge equity
>Rashi Glazer , 04/01/98 California Management Review, Page 175--Walter
>Derzko]
>
>"Framing/Problem Representation"
>
> "An important and frequently encountered type of context that knowers
>rely on is the way a
> particular situation is framed or a problem represented. As is true with
>context in general,
> framing considerations operate at the basic sensory or perceptual levels,
>but the more
> interesting cases involve higher-order cognitive activities. Staying
>within the realm of
> preference judgments, for example, it has been shown that the negative
>properties of stimuli
> tend to be weighted more heavily than the positive ones. Consequently,
>whether a problem is
> framed in terms of gains or losses often has a dramatic effect on the
>interpretation or meaning
> given."
>
>
>Walter Derzko
>Director Brain Space
>(formerly the Idea Lab at
>the Design Exchange)
>Toronto
>(416) 588-1122
>
wderzko@pathcom.com
>
>----------
>From: Emil Zahner <
canmor@COMPUSERVE.COM>
>To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Systematic problem definition and solving
>Date: Saturday, July 25, 1998 10:49 AM
>
>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
>----------
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 23:34:57 -0400
>From: Barbara Austin <
baustin@SPARTAN.AC.BROCKU.CA>
>Subject: Re: Systematic problem definition and solving
>
>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]
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of MG-ED-DV Digest - 25 Jul 1998 to 26 Jul 1998 (#1998-122)
>***************************************************************
>
>