Tasking for Each Problem Type

Tasking a problem provides the staff of the organization a clear definition of what is to be done, what the criteria are for success, and what resources are theirs to use in addressing the problem. The notes below summarize the main tasking challenge for each problem type. The [more detail] link on the left brings up a PDF file for printing which has — you guessed it — more detail.

[more detail]

The primary challenge for puzzles is finding the appropriate expertise and/or leveraging solutions that may exist from other arenas. Scanning the "best practices" is often the first step.

A secondary challenge is ensuring that the effort employs standard and accepted methods. This is not a demand to avoid innovation or novelty; it is a reminder that the credibility of the solution will depend on the validity of the method. If new methods are used, they will need to be validated.

[more detail]

Tasking for these problems is hard to specify. There may be an audience who acceptance is critical (investors, employees, customers, etc.) but the solution will never be a mere summary or extension of their desires. There must be some visionary leap that goes beyond what is known. The charter has to both anchor the effort in the eventual audience as well as legitimate going beyond their conscious preferences.

[more detail]

Uncertainties mean the problem solving effort must bracket multiple futures. The chart must call for enumerating those possible futures and outlining the approach within each. Equally important, the charter should demand some mechanism for monitoring the unfolding future to ensure the solution in place is the best possible as the uncertainties resolve.

[more detail]

However pressing the tension or friction behind the problem, with a dilemma the primary charter is to create a learning process for continual improvement. Dilemmas are not finally resolved, they are continuously managed.

There will be a temptation for the players to slip into the negotiation that is actually required for a Problem of Many Voices, but in this case that would be suboptimal. The real need is for a breakthrough business model that allows for maximizing both sides of the dilemma together.

[more detail]

Problems of this sort task our patience, and the primary thrust of the executive charter should be patience and a certain humility. At attitude of learning from experimentation is more important than a passion for complete solution. There will also be a tendency to focus down on a manageable domain rather than respecting the complexity and rich interconnections that characterize these problems.

For these reasons the group working on a problem of this type will inevitably step on toes, cross boundaries, invade someone's turf, and threaten existing operations. Part of their charter should include encouragement to "follow the system" rather than trying to "stay within the lines".

[more detail]

These problems require a safe forum where the relevant parties can negotiate their differences. The primary role of the charter is to set up that forum. A neutral party as facilitator or mediator will be essential. There may be critieria for a solution to name, but the most important are that all parties feel heard and that their final settlement is seen as equitable and reasonable.

Problems of this sort signal the failure of an executive to correctly understand their own actions. For that reason, there is no detail entry here; if there were an executive capable of setting up the problem, there would no problem to set up! People addressing a problem of this sort must work without the formal authority of senior leadership; it is senior leadership that is the problem. See the process notes for suggestions of how to proceed.

[more detail]

A problem of this sort would be extremely rare within an organization; most commonly there is no leader! And anyone who attempts to stake a claim to be the leader is likely to be an immediate target.

When it does occur in organizations, it is often between 2 departments with dramatically different perspectives and cultures. Typically the hostility is suppressed by the common membership in the larger organization.