Problem? Opportunity? Problems/Improvement...

Two types of opportunity:-

Those that involve the creation of something new
Those that signal a chance to improve


Problem solving usually gets triggered by a perceived "below-normal" performance measure or similar.
Improvement usually means to try to move above the normal performance measure.

There tend to be few differences between methods/techniques for problem solving vs improvement.

"Simple" means the opposite of "complex". It does not mean "easy to solve".

Flood and Jackson (Creative Problem Solving 1991) :-

Simple Problems:-

• Small number of elements
• Few interactions between elements
• Attributes of elements are predetermined
• Interaction between elements is highly organisaed
• Well-defined laws govern behaviour
• No evolution over time
• Single set of goals
• Strong boundary

Complex Problems:-

• Large number of elements
• Many interactions between elements
• Attributes of elements are not predetermined
• Interaction between elements is loosely organised
• Ill-defined laws govern behaviour
• Evolve over time
• Complex set of goals
• Weak Boundary

It is important to consider the context of the problem - the terms goals and boundary help with this.

Flood and Jackson's three types of political/cultural problem contexts:-

• Unitary (common interests, compatible values/beliefs, agreed ends/means, participative decision making, agreed objectives)
• 
  
• Pluralist (compatibility of interest, some divergence of values/beliefs, compromise on ends/means possible, participative decision making, agreed objectives)
• 
  
• Coercive (no common interests, conflicting values/beliefs, no compromise on unagreed ends/means, coercive decision making, unagreed objectives)

Ackoff's "messes vs problems" (see also B822)
Messes - dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other
Problems - extracted from messes by analysis. Atomic parts of messes. Individual problems may be "solved".

Ackoff says that the solutions to individual problems cannot be "added" to form a solution to a mess as those solutions will interact with themselves and the mess.

Rittel "wicked vs tame" (see also B822!)

Tame Problems - can be specified in a form agreed by the relevant parties ahead of the analysis
Wicked Problems - many alternative types and levels of explanation of the phenomena of concern, and the type of explanation determines the nature of the solution

Schon's metaphors (again B822!) - swamp vs high ground

swampy lowland - messy confusing problems defy technical solution where the important problems are
high ground - easier to solve less important problems

Ravetz - practical vs technical problems

Technical - those for which at the start of problem analysis there exists a clear function to be performed

Practical - those for which there is at least a basic general statement of purpose



Juran and Gryna's sporadic vs chronic

Sporadic - sudden adverse change in the status quo
Chronic - an adverse situation that has existed for a long time and remedied by changing the status quo


Ackoff says problems can be solved, resolved or dissolved:-

solved - decision maker selects those values of the controlled variables which maximise the value of the outcome
resolved - decision maker selects those values of the controlled variables that do not maximise the value of the outcome but produce an outcome that is good enough
dissolved - changing the calues so the choices available are no longer meaningful (eg the problem of which car to buy; deciding not to bother and take public transport instead)

Problem solving/improvement has traditionally been thought of as either

firefighting
planned


Quality movement started in Japan and was credited with turning around Japan's fortunes in the 60s/70s.


Problem solving can be approached

1. purely intuitively without careful reflection about the problem
2. through routine recourse to procedures used in the past
3. by adopting unquestioningly the solutions suggested by experts
4. by choosing at random
5. on the basis of systematic rational tought supported by relevant information (Gruenig and Kuehn, 2005)

It is argued that organisations that employ a structured approach to problem solving and improvement can gain better competitive advantage.

A structured approach:

- gives an identity and sense of ownership to the ps/i (problem solving/improvement) exercise
- legitimises the use of time on the activity
- imposes rigour
- makes better use of the available knowledge base
- facilitates group working
plus many more - block 1 p24

Problem solving: a background

It is important to be careful when trying to implement improvement in your organisation. Many management ideas end up as "innovation of the month", "flavour of the month" or "passing fad". Be wary of initiative fatigue. Take situational factors into account when considering problems and opportunities.

Problem solving can be approached "top down" or "bottom up".

 Carnegie said that quality is more important than cost. The American Society of Engineers (management consultants of their day) developed "scientific management".

- science not rule of thumb
- harmony, not discord
- cooperation, not individualism
- maximum output, in place of restricted output (Taylor 1911)

Taylor posited that management should not only decide what needed to be done but also how it should be done.

 This "top down" management continues to this day. From it has come time and motion studies, 6 sigma, and other approaches.

Henry Ford believed in continuous improvement. His view was that everyone should reserve "an open mind as to they way in which every job is being done." - all of management should be open to suggestion. (Ford and Crowther 1922)

The A.S.E viewed that there is a best way to do a job, identified through science, and undertaken by experts under management direction.

Ford viewed there is always a way to improve a job, and that everyone in the organisation can make suggestions for improvement.

Ford's way was forgotten though and Taylor's ways came to dominate, at least until Japanese methods became better known.

I heartily endorse this product or service

If you have been reading this blog, you may be interested to know I used it for self reflection while studying B820 Strategy as part of the Open University's MBA course.

I passed B820 so it must have helped :)

I have since studied B822 and did not blog about that. I miss the blogginess. So I will blog about my next OU courses...

But what when strategy goes wrong (u8p11)

Choice of strategy can affect the prosperity or even survival of your organisation. You can overcome very high odds with the right strategy.

But be careful, like Icarus, your greatest asset can be your undoing. Danny Miller (1992) wrote "Success leads to specialisation and exaggeration, to confidence and complacency, to dogma and ritual." It is much harder to learn from success than from failure. Success can seduce you into excesses that cause your downfall. Success breeds overconfidence, and overconfidence breeds recipes.

Strategic Positioning and Operational Effectiveness p7 u8

Operational Effectiveness is not enough, on its own, I posted about this some months ago.

However, good strategy is not enough on its own either. The two must be combined in implementation.

The Red Cross (a voluntary organisation) does not use the language of competition internally, and does not necessarily "compete" with other organisations to serve "customers", however it still takes part in a competitive marketplace for the resources it needs. Example u8p8

If an organisation like the red cross is inefficient, this will be reflected in the percentage of its income spent on administration costs. This can affect people's perception of the organisation, and as an organisation relying on public goodwill, this can affect income. A reduction in income can directly affect the organisation's ability to carry out its strategy. This is one example of how strategy depends on operational effectiveness. But operational effectiveness can also depend on strategy. Your strategy can drive or even define how you tackle operational effectiveness. If you find your organisation becoming inefficient, a new strategy can be implemented to change this. Control systems, part of your strategy, can help implement and measure operational effectiveness, and models such as Levers of Control (Simon) can be useful here.

Porter says that your strategy allows you to have "a particular set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value". Continuous improvement of operational effectiveness alone is not the basis of advantage. Your competitiors can copy that. Porter suggests that one reason that Sony and Matsushita (and I guess, Japanese car firms) are becoming less competitive is that their success was based predominantly on operational efficiency (quality, just-in-time, lean manufacturing etc) and their competitors have copied them and their lead in some sectors has been almost eradicated. Porter suggests that they now have to learn strategy.

In the 1980s the market positioning view of strategy was dominant, however in the 1990s the resource-based view took over. They are alternative views, although the reasoning today is that they should not be considered mutually exclusive because both are essential to understanding strategy.

Similarly, strategy and operational effectiveness are different and distinct, but both are key to an organisation's survival.

Certainly, at $EMPLOYER, there is currently a shift in $DEPARTMENT towards more operational effectiveness. "Lean" methods are being introduced, clean desk policy, orderly offices, etc (Look on Wikipedia for 5S). However this shift may well be due to a confusion of the difference between strategic positioning and operational efficiency.

Reaching a conclusion - the dynamics of strategy u8

Unit 8 is the final unit of B820.

Its aim is to help

• explain why and in what ways strategy matters for organisations
• understand that strategy is about exercising judgement, in whatever context
• appreciate the context of continuous change in which strategy has to be formulated and implemented
• develop an overview of the scope and content of the subject of strategy, an ability to work with its frameworks and apply them appropriately to managerial decision making
• demonstrate that while the content of strategies will differ across sectors, the requirement for strategy does not

Strategy makes a difference to the potential long-term survival of organisations and has developed because of its practical importance to all types of organisations.

To be a strategic practitioner, is to be identifying issues that make a difference.