« Balancing Governance and Strategy with Portfolios | Main | When Measurement doesn't help Management »

August 30, 2005

Solution Strategies: Solving the Right Problem

Strategic capability is always critically significant, but critical capability is not always strategically significant.

We know that a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not always a square. When we must have a square, the need is what makes the requirements more strict. Understanding that, we can appreciate the idea that "special" solutions are all about the fit to the problem. If a solution is constructed that does not fit the problem, it doesn't matter how elaborate or simpe the solution is.

In an elaborate solution, it is often the case that tremendous amounts of energy are spent on being precisely or accurately elaborate; but in the end, what really matters is only what is relevant.

Taking relevancy as the major guidepost provides an interesting context in which to consider the three dominant modes of solution construction (i.e., change justification) that management usually offers today as having business value:

- Standards compliance
- Continuous Improvement
- Optimization

In the context of relevancy, we get to ask what these efforts "fit" that accounts for why they should be considered "valuable". How do we know that these well-intentioned efforts, usually initiated with a sense of both importance and urgency, are not solving the wrong problem?

I.

The idea of "solutions" makes sense primarily because there is a preconceived "problem". Where the essential problem is that we need something that we don't already have, we can take the basic idea of value as starting with the initial acquisition of something appropriate to our need -- that is, simply marking the difference between having something significant versus having nothing. Typically, organizations think in terms of needing capabilities, so the initial or baseline value is "enablement".

With enablement as the target value proposition, we can think about how each solution mode "fits" or contributes. Each one has a potentially distinctive affect on the objective -- but moreso each one is likely to be requested to address a certain aspect of enablement.

For example, implementation is a baseline concern or aspect of "enablement". In this concern, standards compliance readily exerts huge influence.

Then, for the sake of making the implementation as secure and stable as possible under demand, continuous improvement takes the initial implementation "up a level" from its basic compatibility to greater utility.

That higher value to enablement is not hard to appreciate. But enablement might not be the priority! It is not so unusual that we have a realization of a problem and at that same time see that the solution must not merely enable. Our terms of acceptance, or of what makes the solution "appropriate", virtually begin with a need that is more special than basic enablement will fit. Here, we need an enhanced solution. This asks us to consider how the three solution modes fit enhancement.

In the following diagram, a framework of highly typical solution issues completes this kind of consideration. It shows that the organization's managers can move from basic standards-oriented enablement through a wide range of options that represent "fit-to-need" -- ultimately reaching optimization-oriented innovation.

II.

The main management challenge is to ensure that the solution mode chosen is being applied to the right problem or need.

In the framework, Optimization is identified more specifically as "Effective Optimization". Here, effective means that the optimization being pursued is willing to "break the rules" that may have already been established by standards and continuous improvement in order to adapt the solution to the particular requirements of the current operating environment. Optimization involves real-world trade-offs that allow the solution to actually work.

In the right side of the framework, Innovation identifies a need in which the calculated opportunity to succeed is based on capability that lies outside of the previously established boundaries of expectation.

Generally, the contents of the framework cells name the "justification" or "goal" that is to be addressed by the solution. While no issue within the framework cells is exclusive to its shown location , each represents a point where the application of the solution mode to the business need reaches a threshold of criticality not expected anywhere to its left or lower.

Posted by Malcolm Ryder at August 30, 2005 4:33 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.malcolmryder.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/117

Comments

Post a comment