« Meaning-based Management | Main | Why Projects Fail »

October 12, 2005

The Four Breakthroughs for Creative Solutions

A long-standing story of mine is that there are only three kinds of problems in the world, so I kept three separately labelled baskets on the desk to put them in as they came into the office:
- Problems that won't go away;
- Other people's problems; and
- Problems that go away by themselves.

As a result, it's amazing how much time I found I would have, to work on non-problems.

Sadly, I haven't been to that office in a really long time.

The ones I still go to look pretty much like most offices, where it seems that problem-solving is spread about altogether too much on things that haven't earned the attention. Later those same things become the X percent that is eliminated when people say they've "increased" or "improved" performance. For the most part, improvement opportunities first arrive in the form of eliminating the unnecessary X percent of underachievement -- and that's relatively easy compared to improvements that consist of adding Y percent benefit above reasonable achievement. But going along with that, the stealth issue is that most activity attributable to underperformance is taking place because "it's supposed to be done." In other words, the underperformance is actually organized to take place. Naturally, this means that some re-organization is needed to eliminate the underperformance. As we know, resistance to reorganization is typically pretty high, which pushes "improvement" efforts back towards the status quo instead of towards the future.

So for the work places that are like most others, I've left my three in-baskets behind and settled instead on the following solution breakthroughs:

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
1. Needs are not requirements.
2. Solve the right problem.
3. Choose your pain.
4. Change how you change.
[Copyright M. Ryder / Archestra]
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

For the most part they are about getting off on the right foot -- or more specifically, about avoiding the reasons why so often we don't do so.

Heading off in the wrong direction is an act that usually evolves from influences we confidently account for but incorrectly understand. We see certain circumstances and motivations that lead to the decision to "respond" and we assume that the best response is always a "direct" one -- that is, one based on the characteristics of the problem we see.

When we are sometimes asked to "think outside of the box," what we are hearing is advice to not just "respond" but instead to "act". In this case, action is predicated not solely or even primarily on the features of the problem presented.
Along with this difference, we need to appreciate that many "problems" are symptoms and have deeper origins. It's smart and typical for us to emphasize the search for "root causes" of a problem -- but this should include an appreciation that a cause starts a series of consequences that might each themselves be a new cause of additonal branching problems and might have gotten boosts from more thinking of the same type that planted the root... Famously, Einstein said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."

A creative reaction to the awareness of a problem might be the only way to get past the problematic occasion or condition. But we have to let that creativity come into play. This often means things like the following, where each thing requires considering the thing below it:

- Distinguish the condition that needs to be changed from the steps that are designed to deliberately change it. There's more than one way to skin a cat. (Needs are not requirements.)

- Because there are likely to be interdependencies within the condition, prioritize the importance and timing of the multiple possible outcomes of changing the condition, and work first on the outcomes that are more urgent prerequisites to continuing work on the others. (Solve the right problem.)

- When more than one problem exists, decide whether working on one of them really well is "better than" working on two of them less well, because living with two kinds of pain that require continued attention may (or may not) be worse than living with one kind. (Choose your pain.)

- Don't confuse responsibility, opportunity and competency. No one of those things will assure that the problem will be solved; and realize that while a blend of them will be necessary to solve the problem, the Problem doesn't care where the blend comes from, and it won't go away until it gets what it needs. (Change how you change.)

Taken seriously and together, the four things above build up to a strategic approach. Because the approach calls for not taking anything for granted, it has the ability to reveal alternatives to conventional approaches already learned, expected or adopted. The point is to let the strategy motivate and guide the reaction, instead of just settling for responses guided by convention.

Posted by Malcolm Ryder at October 12, 2005 9:16 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.malcolmryder.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/143

Comments

Post a comment