Hold Your Horses!

We love problems. It gives us a chance to showcase our abilities in finding solutions. And when we have resolved the issue, we do all love a nice beer around the BBQ to rejoice. After all, it is a job well done, a pat on the back, and a time of celebration, that is until the next problem happens.

When a problem is identified, many of us think we know the solution. Some of the fortunate ones in authority may simply define a project to resolve the perceived ‘problem’. We start engaging a team of people. We may even assign a project or a programme manager, depending on the size of the project, to turn the solution into a reality. If we are in government, we might even birth an entire ministry. Whether it is the Agile methodology or ‘Waterfall’ strategy for project management, or the formation of a department, the horse has bolted.

But what if we are solving the ‘wrong’ problem? What if solving that ‘problem’ result in giving us a less-than-optimal solution? What if the ‘real’ problem remains while the illusion of resolution sits comfortably with everyone? Heaven forbid, but is it possible at all that such a case might exist even among well meaning and capable managers of businesses?

Let me illustrate with a real problem. I was working for an outsourced business partner of New Zealand Telecom. The company was having a problem meeting its call centre service level as it was unable to find sufficient staff to man the phones. Ringing-in customers were made to wait for a long time on the phone. Telecom was unimpressed. The outsourced partner needed to increase its manpower level to meet the call targets. But in a tight labour market, Human Resources was running out of solution. I was approached to offer more avenues.

I decided to take a different approach by looking at the problem through an analogy; I treated incoming calls as water and asked myself what I would do if it was a case of a heavy deluge. By so doing, I reframed the problem from “How do we find more people to man the phones?” to “How do we drain away the heavy call volume?” In so doing, my solutions became quite different from the original plan which was to look for more avenues for manpower. Instead, I started to look at the possibility of making use of the Interactive Voice Response system (the thing that people hear when they are waiting on the phone). I explored the option of using the internet to redirecting callers to find their own solutions. I reviewed alternatives available to get call centre representatives to help reduce the number of incoming calls.

In a short period of intense work, we were able to resolve our problems that looked insurmountable at the beginning; we simply practiced problem reframing.

Problem reframing is possibly the most important job of a leader. Leaders are expected to create reality for the organisation. To reframe a problem is to change what people consider as important or pay attention to. Because all solutions flow out from the way that we ‘frame a problem’, the ability to use this skill is so critical to all that we do, especially so if one is a leader.

Problem reframing is practiced my politicians, marketers, and managers alike. We may recognise this as ‘spin’ in politics but it is a powerful tool. Consider the case of the late US President Ronald Reagan, who when his opponent Walter Mondale commented that Reagan was probably too old for the position simply responded that he did not think age should be an issue and he had no intention of making an issue of his ‘opponent’s youth and inexperience.’ In one comment, he reframed the question in a way that made sure that age would not be a major factor in the race to be President.

Again, let me demonstrate how reframing can force our minds to work differently. Because of the astronomical demand of the narrow 737 planes, Boeing had to increase the production dramatically.

Airplanes have always been built on the premise of bringing workers to the plane, i.e. keep the work-in-progress (WIP) plane stationary and bring in the workers. After all, a plane is mighty big and how would you move it?

However, car manufacturing is quite different. It is made on a conveyor belt, when the work-in-progress car creeps up to each set of workers located in a ‘station’. The question was, could planes be made like car production? And the production system became a reality.

That reframing resulted in the following reduction:

• Assembly time from 22 to 11 days,
• WIP inventory by 50%, and
• Number of crane lifts - from 8,000 crane lifts per month to less than 100 crane lifts per month (3 crane lifts per plane).

It allows its production to grow astronomically and it is projected to deliver 38 planes per month by end of 2012 (Production as of June 2011 was 31.5 planes). If they did not reframe the problem, it would be a mighty achievement even if assembly time had come down to 20 days. But we know that would not solve Boeing’s problem.

Boeing 737 video

 

Problem reframing is a powerful tool. The earlier a problem is reframed, the better it is. Because once a problem definition is accepted, and people start investing their time and effort into how they understand their problem ought to be, it will be far too great a price to pay to change that perception; consider the issues of the politics of time investment.

The message is obvious. Be clear about the problem you are solving. If the problem you have identified is ‘I need a negotiation skills training programme’, get more concrete examples. Go and see and do some analysis.

Don’t fall into the trap of accepting the first problem definition. Try different ways of reframing (NB: There are techniques that help you do so but that is for another time).

Here are four golden keys that I learned:

• All problem definitions are based on assumptions,
• Once a problem is defined and accepted, it is almost impossible to change that view,
• The way we frame our problem determines the way we plan for the solutions,
• Always get your bearings right. That way, you will be sure that you are solving the ‘right’ problem.

As a leader, it is simply too expensive to solve the wrong problem or miss the right solution.

Organisation - A Real Big Elephant

Organisational problems are not the same as individual problems. Organisational problems tend to be more challenging. And herein are some challenges:

• The older the organisation, the more systems and processes they have. And some of them have been around for so long that no one is prepared to take the bold step of removing them. So systems pile on top of systems.
• With technology, we see the increase in computer systems. But for two interacting systems to work, they must be able to communicate with each other via ‘interfaces’. Like bringing together two surfaces, there is a need to make sure that the two are glued properly so that they do not come apart at critical times. Now, the ‘glue’ is the interface and the two surfaces are the relevant computer systems. Depending on whether the two surfaces are made of the same materials, the type of ‘interfaces’ might be quite different.
• Some key systems have been in organisations for many years and no one dare to do anything to it. What if someone ‘breaks’ it?
• Business Analysts, when preparing to write a process in a system, fail to consider all business requirements and ask the key questions, effectively having a less-than-optimal solution in the system and that will require subsequent visits later on.
• Cost of upgrading anything within the system is mighty costly. So, no one wants to do anything because it is in a ‘too costly’ and ‘too hard’ basket.
• The bigger the organisation, the more systems, processes and people are involved. Complexities and management increase.
• For big organisations, those who do the job may not want to document the processes because of inconvenience, not having the skill or simply to protect one’s own job. These people handling the process may determine precisely not to do any process documentation.
• Even if these processes are documented, the organisation may go through restructuring over time, be it a retrenchment, merger or demerger (Think of the merger of city councils as a result of political realignment, e.g. the Auckland City Council). All these make documented processes redundant. In addition, unless they are updated, reviewed and managed regularly these will over time become irrelevant.
• Even if they are documented, there are the issues of finding them and making sure that staff are communicated, trained and updated every time a change takes place. Documents maybe kept in different forms in different places. Now, which is the correct version again?
• Then there are the issues of politics and silos. Organisations are made up of people who are structured by departments. People tend to operate comfortably within their own departments but a ‘product process’ is likely to touch several departments. Each department tends to view only to aim for their own benefits, sometimes forgetting the impact that their actions may have on their other business partners. They do not know what the other department is doing.
• Next, there is the issue of ‘process owners’. If the process is handled by two big divisions, e.g. wholesale and retail, then which division is responsible for the process?
• Culture of ‘empowerment’ can complicate things. ‘Empowerment’ to the point of each department looking after their own areas.
• What about the other ‘people’ aspect of staff turnover and promotion? An organisation that has a high staff turnover will face more problems than others. People do move on and they bring along the organisation’s institutional knowledge in their heads.

I hope by now you see where I am going with. Solving organisational problems is likened to untangling a messed up ball of wool; where would you start? 

Sometimes, it is much easier to begin all over again but, with big and entrenched organisations, it is impossible to do so. The ‘best’ least intrusive long-term solution is to make sure that the discipline of governance, documentation, and review is carried out.

Ever been to an old building that has been well maintained regularly and still spick and span? That is exactly where organisations ought to be when we apply the same level of discipline.

Let me know if you need help.