Team Process 2: Problem Solving *

Problem solving is one of the most important processes in the acquisition system. Taking inputs from the innovation process as needed, the problem solving process provides the link between problems and decisions. The output of team problem solving is a solution that is a set of alternatives that provide ways to achieve the desired situation.

There is no one process for solving problems. Every problem places its own demands on the problem solver. There are, however, different levels of problems and their associated techniques that will improve a team's ability to develop solution alternatives. For example, for even relatively simple situations, it may be difficult to separate the problem from its symptoms. Under such circumstances, the Japanese five why approach (Swanson 1995, 121) can be very effective and quickly home in on the problem.

Where people, organizations, and complex relationships exist, it is much more difficult to identify single causes. There may well be several causes that have created the situation, or problem. For the most complex problems, identifying the problem or even reaching agreement that a problem exists can be a real challenge to a team. Every team member will see the situation in their own, unique way. In a very real sense, problems exist in the mind of the observer. Before a team can solve a problem, it must first agree on exactly what the problem is, and why it is a problem.

A problem can be viewed as an undesirable situation. Its solution then becomes a new, desirable situation that the team wants to create. The process of finding ways to change the undesirable situation into a desirable one is a creative part of problem solving. The difference between the desired situation and the current situation is frequently called the gap and the problem solving process known as gap analysis.

Problem solving can also be used to find and take advantage of opportunities. An opportunity can be defined as a desired situation that is different from the current state of affairs. A gap is identified and a set of alternatives developed to create the desired situation. The process to achieve an opportunity is similar to the process to solve a problem.

There is a useful rule or heuristic that the more options available to solve a problem, the better the final solution. For the most important problems, the team should take the time to find the most thorough solution set possible before selecting the best option.

The following sections discuss other areas of problem solving:

Problem Levels

How a team handles a problem depends on its nature and level of difficulty. Solving problems within their area of expertise is the hallmark of a professional. Most day-to-day problems occurring within the IPT/acquisition environment fall within a single professional discipline. The appropriate team member is usually well qualified to identify, understand, and develop its solution. That same individual would likely implement the solution and advise the team afterwards. As long as the solution does not impact other functional areas or ongoing efforts of the team, this is an efficient process and keeps problem solving at the lowest appropriate level.

At the next level, more difficult and specialized problems need a SME to understand and resolve. The expert would take the lead in solving the problem and recommending/implementing its solution. The team, acting as a sounding board, would provide critical thinking as a safety check. If the problem is very serious, another expert could be brought in for a second opinion or to work with the first expert. Under these conditions, the team would very likely want to be involved in the analysis and selection of alternatives.

Some companies have used the concept of a separate peer review team of outside experts to review an initial set of alternatives. Whatever method is used, the goal is to get the most objective and professional set of alternatives possible. The team must fully understand and accept final ownership for the alternatives generated. This will prepare the team for selecting the final alternative and ensure their support for its implementation.

At the next higher level there are fewer problems, but when they occur they are much more complex and encompass a broad range of knowledge, experience, and functional disciplines. These are problems that most likely will need to be solved by the team, as a team. They usually involve social, organizational, technical, management, and/or political issues that could critically impact program success.

In summary, each of the three problem levels mentioned above, routine, specialized, and highly complex, need different approaches for their solutions.

Complex Problem Solving

There are many ways to solve problems, each appropriate for a given circumstance, none appropriate for all circumstances. Flood (1995) takes a systems approach to problem solving, and in Chapter 6 of his book, Solving Problem Solving, identifies a large number of models, with suggestions on their applicability to different situations. A solution to a problem is a set of alternatives that provide means to achieve the desired situation.

With the most complex problems there is never enough information or time to provide a definitive, clean solution. Finding solutions to complex problems is a creative act. Experience, intuition, reflection, and dialogue among team members produces a set of sensible alternatives. These will be based on the team's collective judgment and comfort level. There are too many variables and unknowns to develop linear cause and effect relationships. Complex problems are difficult because they consist of multiple parts related by complex and dynamic feedback loops and time delays.

There is considerable research that indicates people have difficulty in understanding the effects of multiple feedback loops and system delays inherent in complex problems. System dynamics and other modeling techniques can, for some problems, help teams understand these effects and recognize the results of their decisions and policies. For hands-on experience with system dynamics, review the introduction to the IPT flight simulator at the Practice Field. In flying this simulator, the team leader is solving the complex problem of managing ten different team controls to achieve the planned product value within budget and on schedule.

As the team works through a problem solving process, it passes through various stages of analysis and synthesis. The analysis segment serves to tear the problem apart and consider as many views, facets, and specific elements and their relationships as possible. This provides both improved understanding of the problem and a common framework for all team members to further discuss the problem.

After the problem is torn apart, however, the next challenge is to identify changes and solutions that would create the desired situation. During this synthesis, the pieces are modified and put back together to create the new situation that no longer has the characteristics the problem exhibited. This creative integration represents the building part of problem solving and may need to be done a number of times to create several good solutions.

The team should not mix analysis and synthesis in the same discussion. If team members are unaware of which mode should be used, the team may be in both modes at the same time. This results in great confusion and difficulty in communication between team members; each thinking correctly but in a different, and not necessarily appropriate, mode at a given time.

Because of the danger of jumping on the first acceptable solution that comes up, a team should take the time to perform a critical thinking analysis on its solutions. This means running the solution through the gristmill of devil's advocates, questioning the basic assumptions and beliefs that underlie the solution, and checking for consistency with team values and guiding principles. In addition, the solution should be viewed from the systems perspective in terms of the stakeholders at levels above and below the IPT.

The team should discuss the possible reactions and views of major stakeholders to any proposed alternative before it is selected. They may want to divide themselves into subgroups, with each subgroup playing the role of a given stakeholder. Continuing the role play, each subgroup would then prepare a PMI (plusses, minuses, interesting) analysis (de Bono 1982, 11), describing how the alternative would impact their own interests. This approach can identify and preempt potential problems with selecting and implementing a proposed alternative. Another technique is to estimate how well the alternative supports high level strategic plans and how well it fits the culture of the enterprise. Either of these can cause implementation problems if there is poor alignment.