New Tool: Analysis, no Paralysis [Matt Schlegel]

In my previous blog I described how the problem-solving team generated a rich set of ideas from which to draw candidate solutions to the challenges it faces. But, how does the team go about deciding which idea is the best one? Should they fight, bicker and argue about each?

Well, sure, in a controlled way. I call this phase the Analysis Phase of the problem-solving process, and it is part of a two step process, the second step being the Proposal Phase, in which the team arrives at a consensus regarding the path they will take going forward. In this phase, the analytical folks shine.

Every idea has its good points and bad points, its pros and cons. During this Analysis Phase, I present the problem-solving team with the list of the big ideas that have been generated. I will have taken the many ideas that were generated in the Idea Brainstorm and grouped them into a number of big ideas for the team to explore. Each big idea is allotted time for discussion and for generation of the strong points and the weak points.

It is important to move quickly through the collection of the pros and cons. For instance, if you have 100 minutes and 12 big ideas, keep the pro/con analysis of each idea down to 8 minutes apiece. You will find that you are able to collect the important points in those 8 minutes. And, you can avoid getting caught up in minutiae and falling into the proverbial rat hole. Remember, some folks will excel during the Analysis Phase and want to explore the nuances of each idea. On the other hand, some folks will find this detailed analysis a bore. You will want to strike a balance to ensure the analytical folks have a chance to show off their stuff, while keeping up the pace to get through all the ideas and, at the same time, keeping the entire team engaged.

During the Idea Brainstorming phase, you asked the team to set aside their negative reactions to the ideas aired. During the Analysis Phase, you take the opportunity to revisit those negative reactions. You will want to encourage those that feel strongly about each idea to voice their thoughts and feelings. What has happened in the roughly 7 days since they first had their reaction is that the emotional level will often have subsided and the person who feels strongly will be in a better state to explain calmly to the team the reaction that they had and why they think they had it. I have found that letting some time pass is an effective way to explore the emotional side of each idea without letting emotions rule the process.

So, after spending a few minutes on each idea, would you feel like you have done a proper analysis on the idea? Of course not! What will often happen is that the team will not have all the information that they need to adequately analyze a specific idea. In that case, I ask for volunteers, generally the biggest proponent and opponent of a given idea, to collect the information the team feels it needs to analyze the idea. If the need arises, I may call a separate meeting to review any new information, so the team has the chance to develop the pros and cons for the idea to the team’s satisfaction.
Your Problem-Solving team now has a rich set of ideas with the pros and cons for each idea. The analytical folks on the team have chimed in and provided the data and assessment that the team needs to move forward. That brings us to the topic for the next blog, the Proposal Phase, which I affectionately call, “The path of least danger.”
_______________________________________
Matt Schlegel enjoys data. During a recent presentation to a client, Matt noted that he had to pare back the amount of data in the presentation, saying that there was simply too much data. The client quickly quipped, “I never thought I would hear Matt Schlegel say the words ‘too much data.’”

More...

Bumps and Dips on the Path to Solving your Problem [Matt Schlegel]

In past blogs I have described a problem-solving process. When I describe it, it is a nice smooth process flowing from one step to the next. Funny thing is, when you use the process in practice, it may not be so smooth. What if we could look down the path to anticipate likely bumps and dips in the process. We may not be able to avoid those obstacles, but we can brace ourselves to move through them. In this blog I will describe a method to let my fellow problem solvers identify in advance those bumps and dips.

People tend to play to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. Your problem-solving team is comprised of people and their various strengths and weaknesses. Depending on where you are in the problem-solving process, your team members will resonate or not with the phase at hand. If the phase requires a strength that is absent in your team, the team can get stuck and have trouble moving to the next phase. If the team is overrepresented by a particular strength, again the team can get stuck or repeatedly go back to the overrepresented step.

The figure illustrates a team that is generally well represented by team members with various strengths, but has an underrepresentation in the Get It Done Step (step 7) and over representation in the Identify the Problem Step (step 1). What can happen in this case is that team would move around the process to the point of underrepresentation, get stuck, and then move back to the overrepresented step, a discussion about what is wrong, without ever taking the action to solve the problem.



This is just one example. You can see that depending on your team make-up, there can be any number of bumps and dips encountered as you move around the process. It is important for the facilitator of process to understand the team make-up, anticipate the trouble spots, and ensure that the team can move through the obstacle. In the example above, the facilitator needs to clearly identify the Driver role in step 7 and ensure that that role is filled with a willing and able team member. Also, when the team restarts the discussion about the problem, the facilitator needs pull the team back on track by reminding the team that a problem statement already exists.

As I work with teams and see how the strengths and weaknesses influence progress, I realize that there are many well-known clichés that describe these bumps and dips. To name a few: paralysis by analysis, half baked idea, heart in the right place, look before you leap, etc. On your problem-solving teams, what bumps and dips have you encountered and what clichés have come to mind?


_______________________________________________________
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.

More...

Take stock of your problem-solving talents [Matt Schlegel]

In the last blog, I wrote about a talented right-handed pitcher. When it comes to throwing a ball, it is pretty easy for most of us to figure out which arm throws best. But what about problem solving? Each of us has a style that lends itself to contributing to the problem-solving process. How do we figure out what that style is and how we best contribute?


As you have read through the previous blogs describing the problem-solving process (and I hope that if you are reading this you will have done that), you may have been thinking to yourself about how you contribute at each phase in the process. You may have recognized those areas in which you feel you are strong or which you enjoy the most. Those are important clues in understanding where your personal talents lie when it comes to solving problems.

If we accept the 8 steps of the problem-solving process and acknowledge that as individuals we are strong in a few of the steps but perhaps not all of them, what happens when as individuals we attempt to solve problems? I can tell you from personal experience, I will focus on the steps in which I am strong and minimize or skip over the steps where I am weak. Here is how I would characterize myself: Firstly, I am not one to even make a big deal about problems. I may ignore them, live with them or tough them out. On the other hand, occasionally I get a “brilliant” idea that I want to try out. This idea will be a solution to a problem that I may or may not actually have. Yet, I will be so enthused about the idea that I will move forward and implement it, and I will be tenacious in doing so. After implementation, I will take steps to measure how effective the idea is in order to determine if it performs as I envisioned. At this point I usually stop and move on to the next thing.

So, which steps of the problem-solving process are my strengths and which are the weaknesses? Let’s start with weaknesses. I did not start off by having a clear problem statement, nor did I have any goals. I did not enlist the help of others. I did not consider many ideas, just the one that popped into my head. I did not explicitly analyze my idea, but there was the implicit analysis that my brain did to come up with the idea in the first place. I got very enthused about the idea, but I did not necessarily get others enthused about it. And, I worked hard to implement the idea and went back to see how well it worked. From this, you can see that I am personally weak in steps 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the process. On the other hand, I tend to be strong on steps 5, 7 and 8. Good to know.

And, dear reader, in terms of the problem-solving process, which steps do you identify in yourself as strengths? I encourage each of you to take stock of your strengths and understand how you best contribute to the problem-solving process.


Matt Schlegel lives in a household of 5 people, each contributes differently to the problem-solving process and two are teenagers. Matt’s keen awareness of his own problem-solving inadequacies may come from the constant and frank reminders of these inadequacies voiced by these teenagers. Kindly, his wife reminds him of his strengths.

More...

Problem Solving, Shared Leadership and the Enneagram [Matt Schlegel]

In recent blogs I have described the steps of a problem-solving methodology that I have found works extraordinarily well in helping teams solve complex problems. What I have also found is that different team members contribute in different ways, and their contributions are better aligned with some steps of the problem-solving process than others. Imagine if there were a way to understand how each team member best contributes to the problem solving. Imagine if you had a way to ensure that there were strong contributors at each step of the way through the problem-solving process. Also, imagine if you understood when there was too much or too little representation of a particular strength so that you could avoid some classic problem-solving mistakes (for instance, paralysis by analysis.) The next sequence of blogs will describe the connection between people’s strengths and weaknesses and the process itself.

The basic premise of this discussion is that we can find a method that does provide a link between each step in the problem-solving process and people’s strengths and weaknesses. I discovered such a link while studying the Enneagram. For those of you not familiar with the Enneagram, I recommend checking out this link. I find that this book is a great introduction to the Enneagram.

During an Enneagram workshop I attended, the question was raised as to why there are numbers to describe the different personality types. The instructor indicated that the numbers are arranged in the order that people solve problems. Voila! The Enneagram not only describes 9 basic personality types, but it also describes the order in which each type contributes to a way humans solve problems. Fascinating! It was based on this bit of inspiration that I started to develop the problem-solving process I have described in previous blogs. In using this process with teams, I did find that there is a strong correlation between a person’s Enneagram type and their ability to contribute to the problem-solving process. I used this correlation to promote leadership of those with particular strengths as the team needed those strengths during a particular phase. Asking people to do what they are naturally gifted to do yields remarkable results. I believe this is one of the most powerful aspects of this problem-solving process.

Matt Schlegel has studied the Enneagram since 2001. His introduction to the Enneagram came through his family. Over time, he found that it was a useful tool in helping resolve conflicts in the workplace and getting teams to work together more effectively. He also discovered its powerful use as a problem-solving tool. Matt continues to study the Enneagram, discovering something new and interesting with every encounter.

More...

Problem Solving, the Brain, and the Enneagram [Matt Schlegel]

On the topic of problem solving and the brain, I want to bring to your attention a fascinating book called Personality and the Brain written by a local computer scientist and entrepreneur, Peter Savich. Peter became interested in the Enneagram and realized that there must be a link between how the brain operates and the core modality described by the Enneagram. His book makes a very compelling case for this link.

Peter asserts that there are two parts of the brain that drive personality, an old brain component, the amygdala, and a new brain component, the prefrontal cortex (PFC). The amygdala is in essence the fear processor, and the PFC is the optimism/pessimism processor. He goes on to describe how each of these brain components has a right side and a left side, corresponding with the right side and left side of your brain. And, each half invokes dominant characteristics. For instance, one side of your amygdala is your fear-aware processor (the flight processor) and the other is your fear-unaware processor (the fight processor). Likewise, one side of the PFC is your optimism processor (glass half full) and one side is your pessimism processor (glass half empty).

Just like there are 3 states of handedness, right-handed, left-handed or ambidextrous, Peter asserts that both the amygdala and the PFC have three dominant modal states, and it is the combination of these states that give us the 9 states of the Enneagram. How cool is that! He goes on to examine studies from the body of neuroscience literature to show how pathologies in these brain components accentuate or diminish the behaviors that map to the behaviors described by the Enneagram, thereby making a very compelling case for connecting the dots between the brain and the Enneagram. I cannot thank Peter enough for developing and publishing this fascinating thesis.

With the help of this understanding, we are able to connect the dots from 1) a problem-solving process described by the Enneagram, to 2) the behaviors and capabilities important for each phase of that problem-solving process, to 3) our own unique set of behaviors and capabilities and, finally, to 4) our brain which governs those behaviors and capabilities. Just like the brain determines whether we end up being right-handed or left-handed, it also plays an important role in how we contribute to the problem-solving process.
____________________________________
According to Peter Savich’s framework, Matt Schlegel has an amygdala that is fear-aware dominant and a prefrontal cortex that is pessimistic processor dominant. This makes Matt uniquely suited for that part of the problem-solving process he characterizes as “finding the path of least danger.”
More...

Problem Solving and the Black Swan [Matt Schlegel]

In past blogs I have described the importance of creating a clear statement of the problem before you jump into a problem-solving project. The challenge with creating this problem statement is that not everyone has the same problem. In fact, during good times the types of problems that people have grow diverse and less severe. Then, in flies the Black Swan, a disruptive event that impacts a great number of people. This event presses the problem-solving reset button.

In The Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb describes the impact of infrequent events. Taleb calls such an infrequent event, “a Black Swan.” In terms of problem solving, the impact of a Black Swan event is clear – a large number of people come to share a common problem. Whatever smaller issues those people may have faced before, there is a huge problem in front of them that many must address.

In the corporate world, a Black Swan event may be any number of situations: the departure of an important leader, customer or vendor; the restructuring of a division; a merger or acquisition of another company. The list goes on and on. Any of these events gets the attention of everyone in the company and creates a natural urge to want to help solve the problem.

The great news about a Black Swan event is that it gets everyone focused and working together. In large organizations this is hard to do, but when it does happen, seemingly miraculous accomplishments can occur. For instance, once Apple was at the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990’s, the company became very focused on its “core” values and has thrived every since.

When people share a common problem, they are naturally compelled to work together to solve that problem. The important first step of any problem-solving process is the creation of a clear problem statement. Black Swan events grab everyone’s attention and help create a common problem for all. As if a reset button were pressed, it brings everyone to the first step in the problem-solving process. As organizations get larger and larger, these Black Swans can perform an important function in re-aligning people and creating a common problem statement. With that common problem, people focus their energy and overcome even the most difficult challenges. Today, as I reflect on the US and how divided the nation has become and remains, I wonder what Black Swan will cause us to focus our energies again.
_________________________________________
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.
More...

Corporations are People, Too! [Matt Schlegel]

A US Supreme Court decision on January 21, 2010 has re-ignited buzz about the rights (and responsibilities) of corporations. When this buzz happens, and it periodically does (here is an example from 1886), I wonder why it is that we humans are inclined to organize ourselves into ever larger groups? What do those groups afford us? And, what can we learn from this behavior about how organizations solve problems?

When I think about these questions, I first think about what it means to be an individual. The brain is a good place to start thinking about this (literally!) Each of our brains (and I am including all vertebrates here) detects our individual needs and communicates those needs to us in the form of feelings or actions. Satisfying those needs is the problem that the brain is constantly endeavoring to solve. A big part of the brain is dedicated to understanding the problems of one part of the body, and then translating and transferring that information to other parts of the body to help solve the various problems. Our individual brains enable us to be good at solving some problems and not so good at solving others.

Some of the needs identified by our individual brains are best met in collaboration with other individuals and their brains. (2 heads are better than 1!) Our brains figure out what other individuals are good at, and we tend to collaborate with other individuals that help us meet our needs. In that way, collectively we are able to accomplish more and meet each other’s needs better than if we worked individually by ourselves. And, this characteristic is scalable. As the collection of neurons in our brains grows more numerous, and those neurons communicate better with each other, the better the brain becomes at solving problems (fish, reptiles and birds, mammals, culminating in the human brain.) And, this appears to be true for collections of those brains (schools of fish, flocks of birds, herds of animals, organizations of people.) I suppose it is not surprising that brains will tend to use the same successful formula for both internal scaling and external scaling.

When, as individuals, we join a larger group, we create an identity associated with that group. In a sense, as we become part of it, it becomes part of us. As the organization takes on members, it starts to reflect the traits of the individuals. Often, like-minded individuals attract one another, and these individuals may share similar characteristics, including similar strengths and weaknesses. Those strengths and weaknesses can be reflected as strengths and weaknesses of the organization. In the coming blogs, I will share with you some of my experiences about the strengths and weaknesses of organizations for whom I have consulted and show how those strengths and weaknesses affected the organization’s ability to solve problems. Remarkably, the tools that I use for analyzing individuals seem to work very well for analyzing larger collections people. Maybe corporations really are people.

___________________________________________________________________
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use this methodology to help companies solve big challenges, and he folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at http://www.sakinoconsulting.com/.

More...

All in the Family [Matt Schlegel]

One of my clients is a small-sized, innovative technology company that has been in business for over 20 years. It is a self-funded, privately held company with no venture backing. The company is like a family; it is not uncommon for an employee to say they have been with the company over 15 years. At no other technology company have I felt that the company is as much a family as it is a corporation. Working with such a close-knit group can be a double-edged sword. That is why they asked me to help.

People who work together for many years come to know each other’s strengths and weaknesses very well. They come to accept one another and resolve to work with each other through any situation. This resolution often requires being sensitive to other’s feelings and needs and taking an approach that minimizes conflict and drama in order to keep focused on getting the job done. The downside of this approach is that people will tend to downplay problems for the sake of maintaining group harmony.

My client is a group of some of the kindest, most helpful people I have ever had the pleasure to work with. Some of the adjectives that I would use to describe this group are helpful, creative, analytical, cautious and enthusiastic. Two adjectives that I would not use to describe this group are perfectionist and assertive. Yes, this group appears to have weeded out anyone who would be unwilling to put up with the problems of others and anyone who would be assertive to the point of ruffling feathers. Not that this does not happen from time to time, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

The figure shows the problem-solving dynamic that tends to occur at the company. First, there is a great reluctance to acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place. There are no systems in place to identify and report problems to the group in a systematic way. As such, most problems are raised via the squeaky-wheel method. (Cliché: Squeaky wheel gets the grease.) Once someone has a big enough problem and shares that with the right person at the company, the helpful nature of the team kicks in. They want to solve the problem for that person. The company has great strength in creativity and analysis. They bend over backwards and find a creative solution to solve that particular problem. The team will get the thrill of moving towards solving the problem. If the problem is easy enough, it will get addressed. However, if solving the problem requires any transformative change to the way the team has historically worked, there is no one there assertive enough to move the team through that transformation. The problem is addressed to the point that the squeak stops, and the team moves on to the next squeak.

With this client, my two main jobs have been to fill the role of the perfectionist and the asserter. I have helped the company put in place the tools for collecting data, analyzing the data and reporting problems. As the data reveal the problems, the helpful nature of the team kicks in and moves the team smoothly through the problem-solving process. Then, it is my role to serve as the asserter to nudge the team through any transformative changes that will help them resolve their longer term, systematic problems.

This problem-solving framework gives me the tools to understand both the steps of effective problem solving and the interpersonal dynamics that will influence the team’s progression through those steps. It also gives me the tools to explain to my client what may be missing in their skill set that is impeding them from becoming effective problem solvers.

---------------
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.
More...

New Tool: When you need to repair your Cross Functional Product Delivery Engine [Matt Schlegel]

As a smart, young engineer, it may have crossed your mind, as you toiled away on projects, how things would be different if you were in charge. Perhaps these thoughts inspired you to pursue a management position. As a manager, you imagined, you would have more influence over how things got done.
You became a manager. You enjoyed the influence you now had over your group’s business. Your team performed well, and you were successful in the position. Yet, you remained unsatisfied. Business within the entire engineering group was not run as smoothly as you imagined it could be. And, again, you aspired to a position of overall engineering leadership.

You became the engineering leader that you imagined. Engineering runs well, and you have a great, productive team. Yet, you still remain unsatisfied. The overall product delivery engine still does not run as smoothly as it could. You speak to your peers, the leaders of marketing, sales, operations, in the company and they would agree. Ideas are bandied about. Few are tried, and fewer are seen to successful conclusion. The CEO asks you to figure it out and get the entire cross functional product delivery engine to work as well as your engineering group works. Now, what do you do?

Any engineer worth their salt loves tools. They maintain a full tool box. They are on the search for tools to better perform a task. When a tool does not exist to perform the task, they will fashion a new one. In the next few submissions, I will describe a tool that I fashioned to help solve organizational and operational issues both within an engineering group and within the cross functional organization as a whole.

_____________________
Matt Schlegel has held management positions in engineering, product development and program management at a number of Silicon Valley start up companies. Now, Matt enjoys consulting for companies in the areas of engineering leadership, product delivery, joint development with Japanese and Asian partners, and telecommunications. Before he started working on product delivery engines, he cut his teeth (and hands) on Chevrolet engines.

More...

The Strong Boss [Matt Schlegel]

One of my clients is a strong leader. She is a strategic thinker and as smart as they come. She guides herself and her team to deliver consistently great results. Yet, she complains to me that her team fails to think for themselves. As such, she has to maintain a hands-on approach and monitor the team continuously. She finds this tiring and aggravating and wishes she could delegate more. What is happening here?

As I began to interact with my client’s team, I discovered that the team was very good at reacting to direction from the boss. The team understood that the boss highly valued action; therefore, they took direction from the boss and turned that into action as quickly as possible. There was very little need to highlight problems since the boss set the agenda on the important problems to address. Also, the team minimized analysis and planning activities since these activities took time and slowed progress toward action-oriented results.



The figure illustrates the problem-solving dynamics of this organization. The leadership style of the boss created a strong tendency towards action – Git ‘er Done (step 7). The team members attracted to this type of organization are those that respond well to that leadership style. For instance, once the boss set the direction, the team found little need for further conversation about the problem (step 1). By moving directly to step 2, people would organize and figure out how they would respond to the boss’s direction. Ideas would be generated (step 3), but the team would find there was little value in analyzing the ideas (step 4) and building plans (step 5) around those ideas. Rather, the team would present a promising idea (step 6) to the boss for review and approval. The boss, being the smart strategic person that she is, would be able to quickly assess the idea and approve it, modify it or send the team back to the drawing board. In that way, the team would quickly move into the Execution Phase (step 7.)

This action-oriented problem-solving style is very effective in that it produces results quickly. One way to characterize this method is as an iterative method. Another description is “Fail Fast.” This is a great methodology to try different approaches and quickly iterate to a successful solution. And, because the leader in this case was as talented as she is, the probability was high that the ideas she directed the team to pursue would be successful. The cost of this approach is that she had to spend a tremendous amount of energy setting direction, reviewing ideas and monitoring results.

In working with this team, I found that I had to start at the end with the neglected Debrief Step (step 8), reviewing with the team how they solve problems, and determine what was working well and what not so well. Out of this discussion came a list of potential problems (step 1) that the team considered important to address. Reviewing this list with the strong leader, we quickly came into agreement on the important problems. The big difference was that the problems were now the team’s problems, not the boss’s problems – the team was highly vested in solving these problems.

Working with the team, I had them spend more time on analyzing different ideas for solutions and putting together a well-thought-out plan before presenting the plan to the boss. The team put together a terrific proposal in which they genuinely held pride. They presented that to the boss who was equally pleased and gave the team permission to move forward, which the team did with considerable enthusiasm.

The strong boss learned how her personal leadership style was impacting the performance of the team. The problems she experienced with her team were as much the result of her own behavior as that of her team. By allowing the team some say in choosing the problems to solve, the team delivered great results and took far less oversight from the boss, which made the strong boss happy.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Schlegel developed his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process. He also consults for companies developing products jointly with Asian companies. Matt can be found at www.sakinoconsulting.com.
More...

Borrowing Borrowing Brilliance [Matt Schlegel]

In my previous blogs I have described a problem-solving process. By no means am I the first to describe a problem-solving process; there are many, many examples. In fact, I have recently come across David Murray’s book, Borrowing Brilliance, in which he describes a 6-step process. What is the same about Murray’s process and the one I have described in previous blogs? What is different? Why?

Murray provokes his readers by asserting that creativity is, in large part, simply borrowing ideas from others. He says that if you and your team allow yourselves to do this, you will enjoy much better solutions arrived at more quickly. Murray describes the first steps in this process by a series of four meetings:

So here’s how to incorporate the creative thinking process into the daily practices of your organization. Separate the concept development process into four different meetings, each with a different goal and different set of rules. These are:
1) a problem-definition meeting;
2) a borrowing-ideas meeting;
3) a new-idea meeting;
4) the judgment of these ideas at a separate time.

Holy smokes, these are exactly the same first four steps in the process that I have been describing! Coincidence? I hardly think so. If there truly is a fundamental method in the way that humans solve problems, and that method is somehow connected to the way the human brain works, then we would expect to see similarities in any problem-solving process described by a human. And, I think we do.

Here are the steps that Murray uses to describe his entire process:

The Six Steps to Business Innovation
Step 1: Defining ➜ Define the problem you’re trying to solve.
Step 2: Borrowing ➜ Borrow ideas from places with a similar problem.
Step 3: Combining ➜ Connect and combine these borrowed ideas.
Step 4: Incubating ➜ Allow the combinations to incubate into a solution.
Step 5 Judging ➜ Identify the strength and weakness of the solution.
Step 6: Enhancing ➜ Eliminate the weak points while enhancing the strong ones.

While Murray’s process gets off to a great start, it seems to get stuck in the latter steps. Incubating, Judging and Enhancing all seem very much part of the analysis process. Where is the part that the team makes a decision about the solution? Where is the part where the team sells that decision to management? Where is the part where solution is implemented and delivered? Murray’s process seems like a great methodology for an R&D department that is not required to deliver a final result but only well-formed ideas. The great clarity of vision with which Murray describes the first part of the process and the lack of clarity in the delivery part tells me much about Murray and what is important to him. It also provides me with clues about the part of the problem-solving process in which Murray excels – we all like to play to our strengths.

Every problem-solving process has its strengths and weaknesses (including the one that I have described.) In many cases, it is simply because the process is trying to solve only a very specific problem and not a general problem. In many cases, those strengths and weaknesses are attributable to the world view of the author. I love to analyze different problem-solving methods as I attempt to discover fundamental truths about human problem solving. Maybe you can help me? What is your favorite problem-solving method? The Scientific Method? A Bug Resolution Process? The Six-Sigma Method? Please share your methodology here and let’s discuss the similarities and differences between the different methods.
_________________________________________

Matt Schlegel has been developing his problem-solving methodology over the past decade. He continues to use the process to help companies solve big challenges, and folds those experiences into the refinement of the process
More...

New Tool: Sausage Survivors [Matt Schlegel]

Not all problems need a systematic approach like the 8 phase methodology outlined in the previous submission. People are solving problems all the time. Some problems can be addressed in a few moments. Others take longer. Generally, the more people involved in the problem solving process – the more stakeholders there are – the more benefit would be gained by a systematic approach. Here are some examples.

Take the start up founded by a couple clever folks that have worked together for years at their previous big company. When they start developing a new product together, things just click. They know exactly what needs to happen. Then, a few folks join from another large company, some of them managers. Now it gets interesting. The development processes were similar enough so that everyone has a general idea of what needs to happen, but the words they use to describe the process, and the details of who is responsible for what are different enough so that confusion arises, gaps appear, and balls are dropped. Now, add a few junior developers to the mix. These fresh folks are looking to the leaders to understand the development process. Depending on who they listen to, they will get a very different picture of roles and responsibilities on the team. And, the balls continue to drop.

Next, take the two companies that just merged and are integrating development teams. Both development teams have their own terrific product development process. Now, they have to work together to deliver products. Which process should they use? How do they resolve the differences? And, how do they do this in a timely way that allows them to continue to meet the demands of the market?

Most people don’t take a systematic approach, and problems can be solved without one. I have heard people characterize their problem solving process as similar to “making sausage” – it is messy, and you do not want to know what goes in, but in the end it makes a delicious product. As with most endeavors, the smart application of the right tools will allow tool-wielding sausage makers to thrive and prosper.

_____________________________________________
Matt Schlegel has a German last name which belies the fact that his heritage is mostly Irish, English and Scottish. He does have a fondness for sausage which may be traced back to those Germanic roots. He also enjoys the meats of other cultures. He lived 3 years in Japan, where he indulged in sashimi, Matsuzaka-gyu, basashi, and other delicacies.

More...

Problem Solving Tool - Step 6: Tapping your Inner Medieval Salesperson [Matt Schlegel]

After a much too brief summer break, I pick up where I left off. In the last blog I wrote about Step 5, creating a plan to solve your team’s big problem. This step I affectionately referred to as “The Path of Least Danger.” Now that your team has constructed the path, it is time to start the journey down that path, right? Well, not quite yet. Your core, problem-solving team may be revved up and ready to charge down that path, but the wider group of stakeholders may not be there, yet. At this point, it is time to bring the wider group of stakeholders, including the executive sponsors, up to that same level of enthusiasm. It is time to sell your plan.

Folks in sales will understand this phase of the problem-solving process very well. When facilitating problem-solving groups at this phase, I recommend that the team create a presentation that tells a story. The first part of that story sets the stage: you remind your stakeholders of the pain that they are experiencing because of their very big problem. To make this more dramatic, let’s call the problem “the Dragon.” Then, you introduce your heroes, the highly credible team of talented folks that want to slay the Dragon. You may want to share some examples of havoc wreaked by the Dragon, and some stories of early, unsuccessful attempts to slay the Dragon. Then, you will want to share the insight that your heroes had that exposed the path to the Dragon’s weakness. Finally, your story will explain the careful preparation that the heroes have made to march down that path and destroy the Dragon once and for all. And, there you stop.

What do you think that your executive sponsor/decision maker will do at this point? In my experience, having facilitated this process over a dozen times, the response is unequivocally – Go Slay That Dragon! I have found that all reasonable requests for resources - people, capital and cash – are made available for the Dragon Slaying Quest. Also, there is a strong sense of empathy about the shared problem and anticipation of a world in which the Dragon is eliminated. That anticipation is infectious – certainly the executive sponsors feel it. Also, the broader organization will eagerly support our heroes in their quest. That wide-spread support is certainly important since killing this Dragon will not be easy and will require everyone’s cooperation.

I may have stretched the Dragon metaphor to the limits here, but I think it does highlight the important step of having the team get direct permission from the executive sponsors to proceed with expending company resources to solve the big problem. The manner in which this is done is very similar to a sales process. I recommend that the team enlist the help of an enthusiastic, people-oriented salesperson-type to assist the team in both creating and telling your compelling story. With that permission, we then arrive at Step 7 in which you solve your problem. I will describe this step in the next blog.



Growing up, Matt Schlegel was much more interested in riding dragons than slaying them and fondly recalls reading the Dragonriders of Pern by Anne McCaffrey.
More...

Problem Solving Tool - Step 8: Smoothing the Feathers [Matt Schlegel]

The problem-solving team has performed an apparent miracle. A transformative change has taken place in the organization. Results have been measured and confirmed – the goals that the team set out to achieve have been reached, and the problem has been solved. Is it time to celebrate? Well, hold on just a minute.


Whenever there is a transformative change within an organization, there will be perceived “winners” and “losers.” There will be those whose position in the company is apparently improved and those whose position is apparently diminished. Humans are great detectors of these types of changes – we cannot help ourselves, it is just what we do. The 8th and final step of this process (at least numerically speaking) is to reach out to all those people that are affected by the change, find out what is working well and what is not working well in the post-transformation organization.

The team is no longer selling the change. The most important skill at this point in the process is LISTENING. It is particularly important to listen to those who have undergone disruptive change in the way that they perform their function. Not only has this change been emotionally unsettling, there also may be new, unforeseen issues that are impeding workflow. It is important to capture these issues and concerns, address them as well as possible, and ensure that all workflows are moving effectively.

Continuous Improvement

Inevitably, there will be some issues raised during this final listening step of great enough magnitude as to require more than a quick and simple fix. Capture those issues. The interesting thing about this process is that it is not linear, but circular. After the change, new problems arise and can be addressed with the same process, back to step #1. In this manner, an organization can be continually evaluating its effectiveness and taking the steps necessary to improve itself in a never ending cycle, a cycle of continuous improvement.

Time to Celebrate

Okay, the team has taken the time to listen to those who have concerns. You have implemented quick fixes to address the simple concerns, and have recorded those concerns of greater magnitude for careful consideration later. Importantly, you have included all those affected and taken the time to smooth any ruffled feathers. Now, it is time to celebrate! The problem is solved, the metaphoric dragon slain. Take the time to enjoy your success as a team. You deserve it.

In the next series of blogs I will return to the idea of sharing leadership during the problem-solving process.



As an engineering manager, Matt Schlegel had the opportunity to organize/sponsor some memorable celebrations. His favorites to date are canoeing on the Russian River, kayaking in Elkhorn Slough, and cooking at Culinary Center of Monterey. What have been your most memorable team celebrations?

More...

Problem Solving Tool - Step 7: Git’er Done [Matt Schlegel]

Finally, finally, FINALLY! – finally, we are at the step in the process where we actually DO something. We have been talking, talking, talking – all we have done is talk in circles. Now, we finally get to the DOING. It is hard to believe that we have spent so much time thinking and talking. What a waste of time! Let’s get down to the business of solving the problem. Let’s git’er done.

Know anyone who might say that?

Well, they are correct. To this point I have described 6 steps, none of which have actually solved the problem. Furthermore, to describe those steps, I have written 9 blogs. In all that, we really haven’t “done” a thing to solve the problem itself. Can you imagine the time and patience a team would have to go through to get to this point without actually jumping in to solve the problem? It is very tough to imagine for the git’er-done person who spoke in the first paragraph. Well, what have we accomplished? This is a good time to summarize:

1. We have described the problem and established goals
2. We have built a team and defined the roles and responsibilities of its members
3. We have generated a rich set of creative ideas from which to draw
4. We have analyzed those ideas and uncovered the costs and benefits of each
5. We have built a plan around the best set of ideas that will meet the goals, solve the problem
6. And, we have obtained permission to execute that plan

So, yes, while that has been mostly talking, the team has laid the foundation upon which to successfully implement a solution to the problem, and that foundation has buy-in from the stakeholders who have committed the resources necessary to accomplish the goals.

Start Small

Practically speaking, the implementation step often takes the most time. In fact, depending on the goals the team has set out to accomplish, this phase could take more time than the first six steps combined. During this implementation phase, I have found that starting small and building on successes is a great recipe to keep up the momentum. For instance, when implementing solutions that will affect a company’s product development process, I advise the team to pick just one project and prototype the solution with only that one product development team. Working with that one team, you can learn what works and what doesn’t. You can develop the materials you will need to communicate the solutions to other teams. And you can demonstrate the positive effects that the solutions have on the product development outcome. All of this makes it just that much easier for each successive product development team to adopt the solution. After a while, all the teams are using the proposed solution, mitigating the problem and accomplishing the goal.

Git’er done

And, if you know someone who might say what I wrote in the first paragraph, they may be a good candidate to take the lead during this phase of the problem-solving process. This phase is about action and the ideal person is an action-oriented leader, perhaps a team stakeholder with a program management background, who will drive the implementation and not be afraid to ruffle a few feathers along the way if that is what it takes. And, whenever you try to accomplish something big and important, feathers will be ruffled. I will address this issue in the next blog.

Matt Schlegel has a bias toward actions and has been reminded, on occasion, that he is a human “being” not a human “doing.”

More...

New Tool: Reinventing the Wheel [Matt Schlegel]

To a person holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. This great cliché, in a backwards kind of way, says that there are many different tools and many ways to solve problems. Here, I will describe a tool that I have used successfully to solve complex problems in cross functional organizations. Perhaps my analog electronics engineering background compels me to formulate an analogous tool to aid me in describing this tool.

The analogous tool that I propose to use is the wheel. Like the wheel, this tool is an efficient way to move teams forward. Once the team is in motion, it wants to stay in motion. Conversely, once it gets stuck, it takes effort to get it rolling again. It requires balance for smooth operation: once out of balance, the ride can get bumpy. You get the idea. The wheel will be a good way to describe both the pros and cons of this approach.This wheel tool is a methodology consisting of 8 steps or phases. Each step is critical to smoothly getting to the next step. The steps must be done in sequence in order to keep the wheel moving forward. And, each step allows the opportunity for team members to contribute in different ways, some steps will resonate with certain team members’ strengths. Those resonances will provide opportunities for those members to play to those strengths, providing leadership during that phase. Without further ado, here are the steps:

1. Problem – Goal: List the problems, define the goals
2. Team: Build a balanced team
3. Ideas: Brainstorm ideas for solutions
4. Analysis: Analyze the ideas
5. Proposal: Prepare a promising plan
6. Advocate: Present the promising proposal
7. Implementation: Implement the plan
8. Debrief: What worked? What didn’t? Start again.

Does this look familiar? I would expect most to say it does. That simply may speak to the natural way we humans solve problems. The magic, if I may use that word, of taking this systematic approach is that the solution the team chooses to implement has buy-in from all, everyone has a vested interest, and solutions are effective and lasting. Magic indeed.

Ah, yes. And, my favorite part about the wheel analogy is that the beginning and the end are at the same point.

________________________________
Matt Schlegel is a rare native to the Bay Area having grown up in Pleasanton and having gone to high school at Mission San Jose in Fremont. He went south to study engineering at Harvey Mudd College as an undergraduate and UC San Diego as a grad student. Perhaps his favorite education has been at the poker table, where he there learned about another kind of wheel – a five card hand consisting of A-2-3-4-5.

More...

The Fractal Geometry of Problem Solving: how chaos becomes progress [Matt Schlegel]

I remember reading “The Fractal Geometry of Nature” by Benoit Mandelbrot many years ago. Mandelbrot made chaos cool. Since then the term “chaos” has been picked up by many disciplines, not the least of which is software product development. Often, chaos is the term we use to describe a messy, complex situation that we do not fully understand but that is required for creativity. Perhaps our perception of chaos is simply a lack of understanding of the fundamental geometric shape that can elegantly describe that creative process. Is there a fundamental geometry for problem solving and the creativity that comes with it?

Prior to Mandelbrot’s work on fractals, generating interesting graphical images by computer was extraordinarily processor intensive. Taking inspiration from Mandelbrot, Loren Carpenter realized he could create complex and realistic graphical simulations of nature using mere triangles, thereby greatly reducing the computation requirements. If you have not seen the movie he presented at SIGGRAPH in 1980, check it out here. Imagine creating all that from just triangles! This breakthrough was a turning point in the computer industry.

Isn’t problem solving another artifact of nature just like natural landscapes? Might not there be a fundamental fractal geometry for problem solving as well? In previous blogs, I have described an 8-step problem-solving process (9-steps by Enneagram count.) I often invoke an 8-section wheel to describe the process. I imagine that there is another 8- section wheel connected to each section of the main wheel, and another to each section of that, and so on in recursive fashion. This structure might form a problem-solving fractal.

Take the simple example of starting with step 1, defining the problem. At step 1, the problem is that “the Problem” is not yet defined. We need to find someone to clearly articulate that problem. We need to consider various ideas for how we might articulate the problem. We need to understand the impact of any articulation and the pros/cons of such articulation. We need to settle on one articulation and to make sure that everyone is in agreement with that articulation. We need to move on and use that articulation to drive the problem-solving process. And, we need to review that articulation periodically in order to ensure that it remains the correct articulation in light of any new data. In this fashion, we just used the entire problem-solving process to describe one section of the overall process.

Having an awareness of the scalability of the problem-solving process helps us better understand the ebbs and flows of the process and helps keep the team moving forward through the process. And, like using triangles for graphical simulation, it can be used to efficiently address the current problem confronting you, your team or your company, regardless of scale.
_________________________________________

Matt Schlegel remains a fan of Benoit Mandelbrot and recently enjoyed reading Mandelbrot’s book on markets entitled, The (Mis)behavior of Markets.
More...

New Tool: The Path of Least Danger [Matt Schlegel]

In the previous blog, I described the step in the problem-solving process of how a team will analyze the various ideas proposed to solve a problem. During that analysis, the team logically thinks through the pros and cons of each idea. The team will also want to consider peoples’ emotional reactions to each idea, as that will impact the overall acceptance of a proposed solution. Having done that, the team has equipped itself to formulate a plan to move forward. In order for the plan to be accepted, the costs must be reasonable and the risks must be balanced. In my experience, I have found that after bringing a team of people through the problem-solving process to this point, there is a remarkable amount of consensus around the solutions to use in order to solve the problems the team faces. Building on that consensus, the team at this point in the process decides on a plan to move forward. This plan I like to call the Path of Least Danger.

Fear is a remarkable thing. Each of us has a different reaction to fear. I will stretch myself here with my lay knowledge of how the brain processes fear. There is a part of the brain, the amygdala, that serves as the information processor that outputs the fear response to the rest of the brain. As with much of our bi-cameral brain, the amygdala has a right part and a left part. My understanding is that one side tells our brain that something is really scary and that we should avoid it if at all possible. The other side tells the brain that you should go and destroy the thing that is making you feel this way. And, just like people can be "right-brained" and "left-brained" or "right-handed" or "left-handed", some people will have a strong reaction to fight and some will have a strong reaction to flee. (Please correct me if I have misrepresented the function of the brain, this is a blog after all.)

Since we are not quite to the point in our problem-solving process where we need to fight (I will talk about that more in the implementation phase), we can tap into the thoughts of the more "run-for-your-life" types, and I put myself in this category, to help the team formulate the path to move forward. Since the team has collectively decided already to do something, they now need a plan to get them to a solution that solves their problem. And, since all the scary pitfalls and landmines have been laid out in the analysis phase, and by this I am referring to the resources that the team would need to implement each idea and the threats that would prevent an idea from being implemented, then it is a matter of finding that optimal path that minimizes both resource utilization and threats to failure. On that path the team can build the reasonable-cost, risk-balanced plan. In other words, we can use our fear response to empower the team to choose the Path of Least Danger.

Now that the team has decided on a path forward, it is time to acquire the resources you will need to take the team down the selected path. In the next blog, we will talk about the important step of advocating the plan not only to get the permission to proceed, but to get the resources, as well.

__________________________
Matt Schlegel categorizes himself as a "fear aware" type. He taps into that characteristic as he finds that it gives him the ability to create project plans, schedules, test plans and manage quality for products. He finds that he is a "natural" at worst-case analysis, and uses that natural ability to help teams avoid pitfalls, create reliable solutions, and build high-quality products.

More...

Finding the Problem-Solving Super Highway [Matt Schlegel]

Returning to Marcus Buckingham’s book “First, Break All the Rules,” I delighted in his analogy of people’s strengths and weaknesses as super highways and country lanes in the wiring of their brains. I subscribe to this line of thinking; however, it leaves me wanting for a way to identify predictably the super highways and bumpy country lanes of candidate team members, be they for a problem-solving initiative or a spot on a development team. So began a search for a navigation tool to find those super highways and avoid the country lanes.

Many people subscribe to the romantic notion that if you try hard enough you can do anything. I don’t. There are things you are naturally good at and things that you are not. Further, there are things that you are passionate about and things that you are not. The magic occurs when there is alignment of your passions and your natural talents.

Let’s say that you are John Rittman, Head Coach for Stanford’s softball team. And, let’s say that your ace pitcher throws right handed. The problem is that the teams in your division hit much better against right-handed pitchers than against left-handed pitchers. What is the solution to this problem? Are you going to tell your right-handed ace to start practicing with her left hand because if she tries hard enough she can be as great with her left hand as she is with her right hand? Or, are you going to let your ace right hander continue to hone her skills as a right hander and go out and find some left-handed talent to round out the roster?

I am right handed, and last weekend I went out and practiced throwing with my left hand. It is remarkable to me how absolutely inept I am at throwing with my left hand compared with the right. Both accuracy and power suffer, as well as my whole body feels off balance. My brain definitely applies its resources to giving me some competence at throwing right handed while neglecting that capability with my left hand. My right hand definitely got the super highway to my left hand’s country lane.

What we need is a navigation device that can help our teams navigate the problem- solving process. This device needs to not only find the shortest path, but keep us on the super highways whenever possible. I will describe such a device in the next few blogs.


As an engineering manager, one of Matt Schlegel’s most satisfying roles was finding the alignment between people’s natural talents and their passions, and guiding them towards roles in which they could be fabulously successful.
More...

New Tool: Exploring the Idea Space [Matt Schlegel]

In my previous blog I described how one goes about rounding out the team for your problem solving initiative. Now, we dedicate the team to dreaming up as many ideas as possible to solve the problem and achieve the goals. I call this the Idea Brainstorm.

What is an Idea?

An idea is any thought. It may be a big, complex thought. It may be a simple thought. It may have come up before. It may be a newly minted thought. It may be “good.” It may be “bad.” It may be funny, or serious, or even impossible. No matter – all thoughts and all ideas are welcome. The idea brainstorm is a chance for the group to flex its creative muscle. Encourage the team not just to explore boundaries but jump over them and run as far away as possible. My dear friend and mentor, Kimberly Wiefling, encouraged me to start each brainstorm with a warm up exercise. I will never forget when she had us brainstorm the similarities between a refrigerator and a cat. This is still my favorite warm-up theme. My favorite answer to date is that they are both endothermic, a property of both biological and physical systems (Thanks, Mike Plasterer!). Every time I conduct this warm-up, I enjoy hearing new ideas, which reminds me of the importance of including team members of varying backgrounds and experience.

After the warm-up, I have the team brainstorm ideas to solve each objective and its related problems. I try to have the team consider both the objective and the problem since each view may generate different ideas. I ensure that each problem/objective is allotted time for brainstorming. If there are 10 problems and 50 minutes, I will monitor to ensure that the team start the transition to the next brainstorm topic after 5 minutes. Intentionally, this session quickly becomes a high energy meeting with many ideas being bandied about. I will stand at the flip chart scribbling down each idea as it is aired – no filter. For instance, if multiple people say the same idea, I will write it down multiple times.

Some people will be natural contributors in this environment. Some will not. The Naturals will chime in without much prodding. Those that are quiet have important contributions that must also be aired. After the initial idea frenzy, I will go around the room and ensure that each person has had an opportunity to contribute a thought or two. I also remind people that some ideas may spring up after the meeting. In that case, I encourage the team to send me the ideas by email. The point is to get as many different ideas into the mix as possible.

Sugar!!!

In order to keep the energy high, I bring tasty, sugar laden treats for the team to enjoy. These treats provide the fuel to keep the team powered for the entire session. While I generally do not strictly prioritize the problems and the order in which each is brainstormed, I do try to leave the less difficult problems for later in the meeting, just in case the team starts to run out of steam. Of course, sugar can only take you so far, and the longest I would advise conducting this type of brainstorming session is 90 minutes.

First Reaction

A word of caution – what is the first thing that happens when you hear a new idea? You have an emotional reaction. That idea is great! Or, that idea sucks! It is inevitable that each person will have a reaction to each idea. I explain this phenomenon to the team and acknowledge that they will have these reactions. In the case of a negative reaction, I encourage the person with that reaction to think before they blurt, to think about why they are having that reaction, and then to think about how they might solve the problem in a manner more suitable to them. In other words, I encourage them to re-channel the negative energy from the reaction into a positive idea that they can share with the group. I assure them that we will have a chance to analyze the negative reaction at a later meeting, but not at this session. In this way, the team maintains a high energy level and a positive tone for the duration of the brainstorming session.

Idea Space

At the end of this session, you will have a rich set of ideas to work with. You will have allowed all the team members to contribute and to appreciate the contributions from each other. I have found at the end of this meeting, the team morale has increased. There is a sense of hope. The team sees possibilities for solving the problems and paths to reach the goals. In the next phase, the team will scrutinize each path and assess its viability relative to the others in what I call the Analysis phase.

_______________________________
Matt Schlegel’s fondness for the “Refrigerator and Cat” warm-up exercise comes from a deep-seated love/hate relationship with cats starting with his first pet cat “Fufu” and her fondness for gasoline to a more recent run-in with neighborhood cats and their propensity for fertilizing his front lawn. To address the “fertilizer” problem, Matt developed an alarm, uncleverly dubbed “Cataway,” that would direct ultrasonic sound into the “blast zone” when a cat would enter. Results: no more “fertilizer” on the lawn.

More...