Part 5: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

A seven-part series to improve your organization's problem-solving efforts

Can participants enjoy structured problem solving and still achieve substantial improvement for the organization? The answer is an unequivocal, "Yes," and this article is the fifth installment of a series on how to achieve those mutually beneficial outcomes. These articles discuss human psychological factors that generate resistance to a structured, "facts-anddata-based" approach to problem solving and offer suggestions on how to stimulate creativity and put participants' intuition and experiences to work without jeopardizing reliability. A six-step process for problem solving appears in the sidebar.

We're Finally There!

On several occasions in the previous articles, we've mentioned that team members find it more enjoyable to propose solutions than to gather data about problems and determine root causes. We live in a culture that values creativity and innovation more than data gathering and analysis. That's why many teams experience a surge of renewed energy when they reach the solution-generation step in the structured problem-solving process.

Despite these facts, though, many of the solutions developed by teams are never approved for implementation by management or fail to eliminate the root cause sufficiently. Why is it so difficult for team members to tap into their natural creativity and devise effective solutions that can be implemented effectively and efficiently -and maintained over the long haul to attain sustainable improvement?

True Enemies to Solution Generation

Confirmation Bias

Dr. David Myers, a noted psychologist, writes, "Inventive as we can be in solving problems, the correct answer may elude us. Two cognitive tendencies confirmation bias and fixation -often mislead our search for a solution."

Confirmation bias involves our natural predilection to seek out facts and data that confirm our preconceived ideas. Peter Watson demonstrated our reluctance to obtain information that disproves our beliefs. Watson conducted an experiment with British university students that involved figuring out what mathematical rule was being used when a set of three numbers was shown to them. The students often announced rules that were far more complex than the correct rule. Generally, students glanced at the numbers and immediately drew a conclusion regarding the rule. They then tended to test only sets of numbers that matched their conclusions ("positive" examples), rather than sets that would disprove their assumptions ("negative" examples).

The scientific method requires rigorous experimentation, focusing on disproving our assumptions, because humans are so likely to adhere to false beliefs. In fact, Watson later reported, "Ordinary people evade facts, become inconsistent, or systematically defend themselves against the threat of new information relevant to the issue."

Fixation

The diagram shown in Figure 1 is commonly called the "Nine Doc Problem." The instructions are simple; you are to connect all nine dots by using only four lines and without lifting your pencil from the page. If you haven't seen this cognitive thinking problem in the past, take a moment to see if you can solve the puzzle.

Now look at the solution in Figure 2. Obviously, the key to solving this problem is to "think outside the box." Unfortunately, few of us are able to avoid fixation, the inability to see a problem from a new perspective.

Myers explains that we have an innate tendency to approach problems in a particular way, especially a way that was successful in the past. Once we slot a problem into a past representation, we have trouble restructuring how we approach it. Although past successes can be applied to new problems, they also may interfere with our ability to find a new solution. The tendency to repeat past solutions is called "mental set," and it is one form of fixation.

The other form is labeled "functional fixedness," which involves our tendency to think of things only in terms of their usual functions. Myers gives this example, "a person may ransack the house for a screwdriver when a dime would have turned the screw."

Although cognitive-thinking puzzles are fun, they also underscore the reality that all of us are naturally fixated on our past experiences and perceptions. Thus, when a problem-solving team considers potential solutions, the members may have difficulty objectively evaluating the options because they have biases.

Finding the Best Solution

As shown in the fourth step of the structured problem-solving process, the team should consider a variety of possible solutions. Brainstorming is the most common way of generating a list for further consideration. Most teams enjoy this task because every one gets to express his/her suggestions.

Of course, previously successful approaches are sure to emerge in these brainstorming sessions. When the team begins to evaluate its list of possible solutions, team members are likely to favor the ones that align with their biases. Many of the norms that teams follow are designed to keep these evaluation discussions balanced, such as listening with an open mind, keeping individual members from dominating the conversation, and seeking consensus ("I can support that") decisions rather than 100% agreement. In a perfect world, these practices would ensure that every proposal receives fair consideration, but we all know that it's not a perfect world.

Additionally, it is unlikely that the optimal solution appears on that original list. As the title of this article implies, solutions can be categorized in three ways: good, bad, and ugly.

Most teams are able to avoid truly ugly solutions - ones that fail to have a noticeable impact on the root cause, that introduce significant negative consequences, ones whose implementation is resisted adamantly by affected co-workers, or ones that create long-term animosity among team members. That's the good news.

Of course the bad news is that many teams never find the solutions that will eliminate the root cause permanently -at the lowest cost with the least disruption of operations and the greatest support from affected associates. The tendency to hold tight to these initial, preconceived solutions is a major factor that limits the team from obtaining the truly good solutions.

Buckminster Fuller, the noted American architect and engineer, once said, "When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty...but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong."

The gap between good solutions and bad ones (or at least mediocre ones) usually involves just a bit of patience and some tweaking, but the extra effort is worthwhile when the implementation process goes smoother and the results obtained are more dramatic.

Two Activities to Improve Your Solutions

Prove Me Wrong

"Prove me wrong" is an activity that team members can use to evaluate the list of suggested solutions. Table 1 summarizes four evaluation criteria that should be used for most problems, but additional criteria often are appropriate and should be included in the assessment process. Here is a brief description of the four core criteria:

* Root cause fit. This criterion generally will involve multiple sub-criteria. The team develops these based on a thorough analysis of the root cause and what is necessary to eliminate it. Eradication of a root cause often requires changes to equipment, materials, procedures, etc. Each of these would be listed separately on the team's evaluation worksheet.

* Complexity. Once again, complexity generally involves more than one component. Included in this broad criteria are considerations on the length of time required to implement the change, number of people affected by the change, number of process steps affected by the change, the change in information flow required to support the new processes, space/facilities/equipment required, etc. List each of these separately on the evaluation worksheet.

* Cost. At this stage, the team does not need precise cost figures. Generally, ratings of "high," "medium," and "low" are sufficient, but the team may need to determine some approximate costs for solutions that have more unknown features.

* Stakeholder feedback. Many teams wait until a final solution is tested and verified before seeking approval from management or checking with other stakeholders to learn their concerns. In this approach, all key stakeholders, including authorizing managers, customers, and co-workers, are asked to provide feedback regarding the proposed solutions.

The steps in the prove me wrong activity are shown below:

* The team establishes the evaluation criteria and constructs an appropriate worksheet. Flip-chart-sized worksheets work very well because participants can view progress during the evaluation process.

* A brief description of each proposed solution is listed on the worksheet. Details are not appropriate at this point. Think of these as "skeleton" solutions that will have "meat and bones" added later.

* The first proposed solution is evaluated for "root cause fit" and "complexity."Team members are instructed to bring a "disproving" mental process to the task, being critical, but not mean.

This approach is in direct opposition to the normal process of trying to find value in every suggestion. Why? To identify the weaknesses in each suggestion so that they are addressed prior to implementation.

The key is to handle this work in the spirit of a failure-mode-and-effects analysis; it's good to find problems before they bite you! Everyone must offer at least one negative for each criterion for each solution. This means that even the originator has to set aside his/her bias and find something wrong with the suggestion.

Although this is a fault-finding process, it does not need to be heavy-handed. Team members don't need to agonize over the evaluation, and the mood can be lighthearted. It's usually best to go around the room, asking each team member to offer one fault and repeat that process until no more faults come to mind. As the evaluation process continues, encourage team members to consider the solutions more deeply (without becoming obsessed with identifying every obscure potential negative occurrence). The remaining proposals are evaluated in a similar manner.

* Rank the costs. Have each team member individually rate the costs from highest to lowest. Compile the individual ratings and determine the overall ranking.

* Gather stakeholder feedback. Meet with a cross section of representatives of the identified stakeholder groups. Present a brief description of each possible solution and capture their feedback on its strengths and weaknesses. Summarize the weaknesses on the worksheet and set the strengths aside for use in action planning in step five of the problem-solving process.

At this point, your team will know the "warts" for all the proposed solutions and will be ready to do the "solution scramble" described in the next section.

Solution Scramble

Basically, the solution scramble process involves constructing a new solution from the portions of the original suggestions that were not problematic. The team begins this work by looking at the first proposed solution. Any aspects of it that do not have flaws are listed on a flip chart as bullet points. The list of solution components continues until the best aspects of all the original proposals are listed.

Then the team looks at the criteria "root cause fit criteria" and asks, "Are there any portions of the root cause that these bullet points will not eliminate?" If there are, the team develops bullet points (solution components) specifically designed to address those deficiencies.

At that point, the bullet points can be reorganized and rephrased to create a new comprehensive solution that contains the best features of the original proposals and should satisfy the evaluation criteria well.

One of the greatest advantages of this approach to solution development is that it is totally collaborative. Every final solution automatically incorporates the best characteristics of the team members' original proposals, as well as the feedback of the stakeholders'group.

Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt

Isaac Asimov wrote, "How often people speak of art and science as though they were two entirely different things, with no interconnection. An artist is emotional, they think, and uses only his intuition; he sees all at once and has no need of reason. A scientist is cold, they think, and uses only his reason; he argues carefully step by step, and needs no imagination. That is all wrong. The true artist is quite rational as well as imaginative and knows what he is doing; if he does not, his art suffers. The true scientist is quite imaginative as well as rational, and sometimes leaps to solutions where reason can follow only slowly; if he does not, his science suffers."

Up to this point, the solution selection process relies largely on team members' intuition -their artistic sides. Although the prove me wrong and solution scramble activities reduce team members' biases, the selected solution is still based primarily on team members' judgment and experience.

That is why step four of the structured problem-solving process requires testing the most promising solution and revising it based on the test results. This is where science validates art, resulting in a proven solution, rather than an inspired one.

In the Next Issue

In this article, solution development was discussed, along with some of the innate human cognitive processes that affect our ability to evaluate proposals objectively. In the next issue, we will explore the steps for developing an action plan and implementing the proven solution.

References

Myers, David G., Psychology. (New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2004) pp. 387-388.

Copyright Association for Quality and Participation Fall 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved