Collective problem
solving sessions, ranging from formal workshops to brainstorming meetings and
online forum discussions, are often not effective. There are a few common
mistakes that I saw happening again and again. Some of them are due to bad
problem solving method and some others are due to lack of a systemic approach.
This post will serve as a "what not to do" list with tips to make
such sessions more effective applying systems thinking in problem solving.
Complex problems often require a bigger group with different views to
participate into brainstorming, discussion and formulating solutions. However,
many sessions go off the main topic, lots of discussions but no clear result,
or worse, create/deepen conflicts and force compromise. These often lead to
pessimism about collective problem solving and lead to using less effective
mechanisms such as upper management intervention or hard sell an one-sided
plan.
From my observation and
experience leading sessions with widely diverse groups, here are components of
a formula for unsuccessful collective problem solving:
1. No clear process of
problem solving
To bring in different views effectively in a short time requires a careful
design of the inquiry and problem solving process. This process is often
reflected in an agenda. Having no agenda or spending not enough time to explain
and reiterate where the group is in the process is prescription for random
conversations while important inputs are not appropriately voiced.
Tips: Scaffolding the working session.
Careful develop a detailed agenda that takes into account not only the process
but also group dynamics and contribution that each group of participants can
make. Make sure you have the right mix of participants to understand, explore,
validate and decide. Whenever possible, synchronize the agenda in advance and
make sure participants come prepared with information and thoughts. This step
is as important as scaffolding before starting to build.
During the session, spend
ample time to explain to participants each step and intended purpose of each
step in reaching the final goals. The facilitator(s) needs to keep the flow but
allow flexibility to accommodate useful conversations and changes without major
deviation from the original process. Summarize results so far and clarify the
following steps once in a while to make sure that participants can follow the
process.
2. No upfront common
understanding of the objectives, value drivers and constraints
Assuming that every
participant has the same understanding about the background, especially
objectives and constraints, often lead to unproductive arguments and
conversations.
Tips: Define purpose and system
boundary. Start off the session by asking the sponsor to set the ground and
talk about the value drivers and objectives of the problem solving exercise.
Explain and agree on the constraints, but at the same time make sure everyone
understands why the constraints exist, just in case some of them need to be
revisited later (see point 5 below).
3. Jump to solution
discussion before the problem is properly understood
Sounds very simple, this is the most common mistake I observed. Under the
action imperative, especially when there are many experts in the room, groups
tend to start immediately discussing about solutions. In addition, to be
objective and avoid conflict, participants are often request to present data
related to their argument. However, participants with different mental models
interpret data differently, resulting in grid-lock arguments and conflicts.
Tips: Bring everyone to a helicopter
view of the system. Build a systemic problem model visually before solution
discussion. Data presented should be positioned against the appropriate part of
the model. Once presented against the model, data will help not only to give a
detail picture, but also to develop and verify the model of the problem. This
is like taking people out from their local views to a helicopter view of the
whole problem. Once the system is properly understood (and optimally documented
visually), the solutions normally emerge naturally.
4. No clear view of the
outcomes
Discussions often are divergent and take long to go to conclusion, sometimes
still not good enough to be used in the next steps when participants have no
clear view of the desired outcomes. Words are normally NOT enough.
Tips: Visualize and build the
outcomes as the discussion goes. Visualize and discuss early in the session
how the outcomes should look like. Design the process so that each step will
help to move the group closer to the outcome. Result-based conversation are
more productive, and visualization of each step toward the outcome will help
participants appreciate the progress much more.
5. Try to solve problem
at the wrong level/area and avoid to solve problem at a different level/area
Many issues that people try to solve are only symptoms of problems somewhere
else. For example, process exceptions in many cases are created by breakdown in
related processes or wrong organization structure. Trying to accommodate the
process exceptions will not make the problem go away, even make it more
difficult later to address the root cause.
Sometimes, recognizing that
the problem needs to be addressed elsewhere, narrowly-defined boundaries, rigid
deadline and lack of upper-management support, the team still create a
quick-fix and avoid the root cause.
Tips: Solve the problem of different
systems at the same time. While examining the problem in the current
context, it is important to put the system of inquiry in a bigger perspective.
Bring people with broader view and responsibilities to the process. Diagnose
the other related or incorporating (i.e. mother) systems, take not only
functional but also structural view of the problem. Once problems elsewhere are
identified, come up with careful analysis of dependencies and plan to initiate
problem solving at different levels and locations in parallel. Contingency
planning is important to make this happen without compromising, breaking the
deadline or exploding the scope of the project.
After all, collective
problem solving involving different views and functions requires a lot of
preparation, thoughts and skills that most people think. Inadequate attention
to these often result in frustrations, conflicts, compromise, and
create/reinforce boundaries and cylos. The tips presented here are a starting
point to think about a more effective process.
Uploaded from Heidelberg
Recent Comments