The Next Organization

Formular for inefficient collective problem solving sessions (but people still do very often)

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

, after my favorite soccer team, Croatian, lost its match in Euro 2008.

 

The need for collaboration

Reading both IT and business innovations, developments and highlights these days, I notice that collaboration keeps popping up as a central issue. In trying to answer the question why collaboration is so hot a topic for companies now, I quickly listed the reasons behind this. This blog post and my next "The networked age's economic model" is highly related. This morning, while reading Tom Friedman's The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century, I was worried that he would stole my line. He didn't. He did mention some ideas close to some of the ideas I had, but focused on facts rather than analysis. Anyway, let's go back to the central question of collaboration.

My answer to the importance of collaboration today is the "organic solidarity" arisen from economic and social needs in a highly-specialized society. The term "organic solidarity" is from Emile Durchheim's The division of labor in society. In this work, the authors argued that "Different specializations in employment and social roles created dependencies that tied people to one another, since people no longer could count on filling all of their needs by themselves." I found 4 main driving forces for why this "organic solidarity" heightens the need for collaboration.