Tips for Formulating Solutions

While solutions are often unique to the problem, they do reveal some predictable themes. The following questions will help you be more thorough in exploring solutions. They are meant as a supplement to the richer material contained in the different problem types. The strategy here is to enumerate the various components or domains in any solution. It provides a checklist to test the completeness of your suggested solution.

Also, each of us typically has a solution domain that is most comfortable. You might, for example, prefer a conceptual solution and shy away from political solutions. That type of preference is not to be mistaken for the essential nature of the problem or the best solution; it is merely the comfort zone of the problem solver. Do not be misled into only looking for nails because you prefer using a hammer.

For a thorough resolution, will you need to change how the organization is structured? That is, will it be necessary to change organizational boundaries, job descriptions, process definitions, or other formal definitions? Will you need to change policies? Procedures? Or how rewards are distributed?

For example, resolving dilemmas often requires cross-linking rewards. When sales staff receive bonuses which are 40% determined by on-time delivery, they become more sensitive to the issues in manufacturing. When manufacturing staff are bonused 40% on sales volume, they are more sensitive to how to handle higher volume. Co-locating antagonists is another structural modification that can address a dilemma.

For a thorough resolution, will you need to change how people think about the situation? That is, will it be necessary to provide new models or concepts which would define new options, highlight different relationships, or focus attention on different aspects of the situation?

Dilemmas often require a shift in mind set for at least a critical few players. The change from thinking of "two goals" to thinking in terms of "one dilemma" is a conceptual shift that generates a new lens for viewing every aspect of the situation.

For a thorough resolution, will it be essential to establish new relationships among the stakeholders? That is, will they need new patterns of communicating, exploring differences, making decisions together, and other interpersonal dynamics?

In a Problem of Many Voices, the players need to negotiate rules for debating and negotiating. They need to agree on "rules of engagement" even though they disagree strongly on their positions.

In a Dilemma, the players need to find a sense of regard and concern for people they may have had disdain for in the past.

For a thorough resolution, will it be essential to change the culture of the organization? That is, will you need new symbols, stories, heroes, or icons?

Organizational cultures can easily be competitive or even mistrusting, when the real need is for collaboration and an eye for synergy. When trust is broken, it is rebuilt through a series of small steps, each of which can be translated into a new cultural symbol.

Executive actions are often more important for their symbolic meaning than they are for their substantive content. One of my client companies was caught in a flood soon after the new CEO arrived. When he joined the lines of staff relieving the water before it swamped the cars in the parking lot, his behavior was common knowledge throughout the organization within 24 hours. He had symbolically shown his concern for employees, his willingness to "dig in", in this case quite literally.

For a thorough resolution, will it be essential to install new technologies? That is, will you need new tools, equipment, software, or facilities?

Some problems are greatly aided by a new software package, or a different room arrangement. For example, work flow software enables groups to work together easier because the transfer of data from one work station to another is automated.

For a thorough resolution, will it be essential to have new or different people on board? Will you need new skills or expertise? Will it be critical to train or replace key players?

Although we are often too quick to swap out workers, some problems do require modifying the people involved, or even replacing them. When public utilities take on a more customer centric approach, they often have a large cadre of managers with 20+ years practice of a more bureaucratic mind set. One client of mine decided to forego training (the "old timers" simply refused to change) and rely on replacement instead to transform the management ranks. The need for an individual solution was clear, but training was equally clearly going to be inadequate.

For a thorough resolution, will you need new political relationships? That is, will the distribution of power need to be changed? Will you need new alliances or coalitions between the various players?

For many of us 'political solution' seems like an oxymoron; typically political actions are the problem, not the solution. But some solutions require a shift in political links. For example, improving quality throughout a value chain may require that different companies form a partnership rather than the more pallid vendor-customer relationship. Where before they considered certain information proprietary, now they need to learn to share it freely.