The Problem With Problem-Solving

Just this past week, Seamus Maguire publsihed a book entitled Finding Fact Before Fixing: How Business Professionals Can Avoid False Assumptions When Solving Problems, which explores the reasons, biases, and blind spots that result in business professionals making assumptions and jumping to conclusions during problem-solving.

During a recent conversation with Seamus, I asked him: "What are some of the common mistakes business leaders make when problem-solving?" Here is his answer:

It’s my opinion that assumptions, not complexity, are the biggest obstacle to effective problem solving today.

There are a myriad of tools and frameworks that we can follow, from DMAIC to A3 and everything in between. However, even when these tools and frameworks are followed and we have the right people, problem-solving activities can still fall short.

The issue lies not in the tools themselves but rather in how people are hardwired to focus on fast results.

This creates a subconscious tendency to accept our best guesses as facts. We regularly skip the part of an investigation that requires experimental work or going to the gemba to observe.

This tendency is so subtle that we often don’t even realise we are doing it. Often, the potential causes feel so right and are so logical that it seems a waste of time to challenge them through experimentation.

The thing is, we will always be wrong more often than we are right in problem solving, and that’s ok! We can’t think our way out of a problem; if we could, well, it wouldn’t be a problem.

The alternative takes a little more work; it involves creating a way to test our hypothesis so that we learn more about the process/product in question until we reach the point where our knowledge encompasses the problem. At this point, it is no longer a problem.

That’s why true root causes often seem so obvious in hindsight. Until we have the knowledge, the issue is super complex. Then, once we gain the required knowledge, the problem becomes simple and mundane overnight, and you scratch your head, asking why it took so long to figure it out.

So next time you are asking for an update on a problem-solving activity, instead of asking ‘Have you got to root cause yet?’, or, ‘What’s the root cause?’, maybe ask, ‘What have you experimentally ruled out so far?’, or, ‘How did you confirm that?’ This will shift the focus to how problem-solving is conducted, rather than encouraging the team to accept assumptions as fact to achieve a quick result.

What do you think of Seamus's perspective? Do these types of mistakes happen in your organization? What have you done to rectify them? 

Can Green Six Sigma Help and Enhance Sustainability and Climate-Change Initiatives?

This past September, Ron Basu published a book entitled The Green Six Sigma Handbook:  A Complete Guide for Lean Six Sigma Practitioners and Managers, which details how the benefits of a combined Lean and Six Sigma initiative can indeed encompass sustainability and climate-change concerns. 

I spoke with Ron this past week and asked him specifically: "How does Green Six Sigma help and enhance sustainability and climate-change initiatives?" Here is his complete response:

If nothing tangible is done climate change will worsen and its impact on our planet will be catastrophic. We have many climate change initiatives, such as clean energy and retrofitting houses. There are also many global initiatives sponsored by the United Nations, such as several COP (Conference of Parties) conferences going on for several years. We need breakthrough technology and breakthrough change methodology. We have the power of invention to assist these initiatives but that takes time. We have to use all our available tools now. Six Sigma is such a tool for breakthrough change methodology. The tools and approaches of Six Sigma when focused and adapted primarily to climate change demands get Green Six Sigma. The approach is underpinned by three tenets: fitness for the purpose of climate change, fitness for holistic Lean processes, and fitness for environmental sustainability.

The importance of climate change or global warming, if you prefer it, cannot be doubted. All land areas of our planet are experiencing heat waves, frequent storms, flooding, landslides, and wildfires. As a result, there are many international and national climate change initiatives in hand, but the outcomes are not always sustainable. We also need a catalyst and a disciplined process to make it happen. This is where Green Six Sigma comes in.

Green Six Sigma combines and extends the tools, techniques, and processes of both Lean and Six Sigma to customize them for climate change initiatives. As a specific example, the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) cycle has been extended in Green Six Sigma to DMAICS with the inclusion of Sustain. The tools and techniques of Sustain ensure and enhance both the sustainability of the outcomes of climate change initiatives and the sustainability of environmental standards. It is vital we harness all our tools and resources to regenerate the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic and Ukraine conflict and implement climate change initiatives for the survival of the planet.

A number of real-life case examples have been included in The Green Six Sigma Handbook to support how sustainability can be enhanced. This book is a hands-on single-source reference of tools, techniques, and processes integrating both Lean and Six Sigma. I show how to apply the principles of Lean Six Sigma and FIT SIGMA to the practical realities of businesses of all sectors and walk readers through the application of tools and techniques in the environmental context. The uniqueness of the Green Six Sigma approach is that its outcomes lead to the sustainability of both processes and environmental standards of climate change.

What do you think of Ron Basu's perspective? Do you think Lean Six Sigma initiatives can encompass sustainability? Has your Lean Sigma process evolved to include climate-change concerns? 

Can Six Sigma Help Improve HR Processes?

In 2021, prolific author Daniel T. Bloom published the second edition of his book entitled Achieving HR Excellence through Six Sigma, which describes exactly what excellence in human resources (HR) means and outlines dozens of proven approaches as well as a hierarchy of the exact steps required to achieve it. It illustrates the Six Sigma methodology from the creation of a project to its successful completion. At each stage, it describes the specific tools currently available and provides examples of organizations that have used Six Sigma within HR to improve their organizations. 

When I spoke with Daniel this past month, I asked him: "How does Six Sigma actually help improve HR processes?" Here is his complete answer:

The Human Capital Management field today is faced with a dilemma. It is a dilemma that will determine whether there is a human Capital Management field going forward. 

Too many of my colleagues are stuck in a transactional field which means that they see their role as that of the organizational fireman. There to purely put out fires. However, there is another view that Six Sigma encourages and that is the role of being the organizational thinker.

Consider the reactions from two HR professionals who have seen the Six-Sigma approach and have had phenomenal results. The HR Manager of an electronics organization stated that Six Sigma made her rethink the way she viewed HR -- it empowers you to want to make immediate and sustainable improvements to your organization. Using the strategies discussed in the book, she was able to reduce the average time to fill an open position by 58 percent and the cost of hire by 81 percent. The other view is from the VP of HR for a major trade association who told us that the material in the book (and the accompanying course) inspired her to think about additional training and professional practice of these concepts. She had already put some of the key concepts behind the DMAIC method to work.

The ultimate goal of Six Sigma and its associated tools is to enable you to see and feel the problem through the use of logical thinking processes and then to create a new normal by changing the corporate culture accordingly.

What do you think of Daniel's perspective regarding Six Sigma and the HR department? Have you incorporated Six Sigma techniques in your HR departments? If so, have the results been positive?

Lean System Management -- Can Structured Systems Unify and Align Quality Practices Throughout an Organization?

It has been argued that that the proven practices of performance excellence and quality cannot be sustained over the long term. A new book by Richard E. Mallory entitled Lean System Management for Leaders: A New Performance Management Toolset postulates that the reason for this failure is that there is no cohesive guidance on the management of groups of people working together toward specific goals. The author believes we currently have only a patchwork of two very specific knowledge areas -- one for process management and one for project management. I asked Richard a series of questions about how his book seeks to rectify this situation. I'm including those along with Richard's very interesting answers here:

Why do you believe that system management is new to management?

System management shows how to create and define a best practice ‘map’ for any or all management systems, and how to identify and define its influencing factors of success.  This allows manager to create an operational best practice map with measurable metrics and indicators of success.  Once that is done, the model itself provides a foundation of a perfect ‘learning organization’ that can review and improve on its practices over each performance cycle.  There is nothing in existing management practice that shows how to provide this kind of structure, evaluation, and learning for the management structure overall. 

Why do you call it a “fundamental” body of knowledge for all managers?

Much of current management literature is focused only on one-to-one interactions with individuals--“supervision“-- or generic group practices like “motivation”, “goal-setting”, “employee engagement”, or “encouraging the heart.”   Another approach puts its focus on generic organizational frameworks that provide a cookbook of advisory or prescriptive tactics under headings like “Baldrige”, “ISO”, or “The House of Lean."   It is a great omission of current management knowledge that there is firm structure for defining, analyzing, standardizing, or implementing best practices for the specific practice areas of individual managers – either for a program office or for specific management functions like governance, strategic planning, budgeting, quality control, and project management.

Isn’t systems management mentioned in a lot of management books?

Yes, many books use the plural word ‘systems’ with the same meaning as an organizational environment.  One business book says that “systems thinking is more of a concept than a tool,” and describes the system as ALL the factors that surround a process.  Another calls systems “a set of inter-related processes.”  Either definition will blind managers to the possibility of documenting and improving a SINGLE area of management practice with specific goals – the real definition of a system.  When systems are looked at one at a time, it is possible to define and map their primary activities and success factors, and this kind of documentation of systems redefines management. 

What is the difference between a process and a system?

A business process uses a specific set of sequential steps, each of which can be defined, to produce a specific output with a definable set of output requirements.  A process is often completed by a designated work team, and is designed to be done the same way with the same sequential steps time after time.  A system is more easily seen as a project, in that it produces a valuable output but will have a production cycle that may not be rigidly sequential, that is more changeable because of intervening factors in each cycle, and that may produce a number of outputs all of which cannot be defined in advance.  A system is less likely to follow a single predictable path and may have to obtain its result using personnel that are not a designated work team. 

Given all those differences, what makes you think that a system can be mapped?

All human knowledge is based on science, which itself is based on observation of repetitive cycles and learning about the factors that drive success in any given cycle.  If you start with the premise that each management system is cyclical and has quantifiable goals, then we can define and predict the principal activity groups (or milestones) that are necessary to achieve those goals. We can also then define the measurable attributes of success in each group.  Using cause and effect analysis, we can further break down the influencing factors (or “causes”) of success, and the metrics or indicators that can be seen when those practices are followed.  Even though the operational best practices of system are not sequential with specific assignable steps, the system map does provide a documented operational plan that can be evaluated and improved.

 

Can you explain the concepts of “native systems” and “design systems” that you refer to in your book?

Often times groups of people develop a habit, understanding, or “culture” about the way things are done around here, and this is the native system.  Like standing in line at the grocery store, people make things work based on assumptions of what is considered fair or right.  The same is true in larger organizations, so the way that we operate a program office, develop a budget, or decide on projects is often a combination of guess work and detective work.  The idea of design system is a deliberate decision of a leadership structure that for critical management outputs, there should be a focused effort to define how it will work best, to let everyone know about that operational plan, to evaluate its operation at the end of each cycle, and to innovate and improve based on learning.  This mirrors the practices recommended by the Framework for performance excellence of the National Quality Award that management systems should have a documented approach and deployment combined with periodic learning and innovation. 

The book title mentions Lean.  Does that mean if follows established process improvement methodology?

System management shows leaders how to achieve superior leadership results by applying a Lean DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) structure to leadership systems and program office operations.  It shows leaders how to align and evaluate these systems using a Lean approach, and how to evaluate and score the maturity of management practices through the American Society for Quality System Management Standard (http://asq.org/gov).  It offers analytic skills to eliminate duplication and waste of executive and senior management time, and reduce the wait time and non-value add in dependent processes.

Explain how lean system management provides an agile framework for organizational change.

Lean system management presents a structured framework for defining and controlling organizations, along with a system maturity standard that allows regular measurement of the maturity and capability of defined management systems.  In this way it provides an agile framework for the organization-wide practice of quality (which we will refer to as “Performance Excellence”), and enables the use of a system maturity scorecard, showing the capability and maturity of quality management function throughout the organization.  It also allows and enables an organization-wide scorecard on the practice of quality at the process level, through use of the Process Management Standard (See Measuring Maturity, Quality Progress, Sept. 2016 --

http://asq.org/quality-progress/2016/09/process-capability/measuring-maturity.html).

What do you think of Richard's view of system management? Do you agree with his views on why performance excellence is currently not sustained by many organizations?

Can Quality Standards Improve the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Government Operations?

Conventional wisdom says that government is not efficient and not effective – but, we are still unsure what works and what is broken in government, where to find some common sense, and where to start to fix it. So, with that in mind, I'm glad I had the chance to speak with Richard E. Mallory this month about his recently published book, Quality Standards for Highly Effective Government, Second Edition. I asked him a series of questions, and I'm including those along with Richard's very interesting answers here.

What are Quality Standards?
They are professional standards developed and endorsed by the American Society for Quality Government Division as international best practice standards for government. There are three standards that collectively apply to every area of government operations, and provide a framework for excellence. There is a standard for process management, system management (including project management), and for aligned leadership objectives. One or more of these standards align with the responsibility of every supervisor, manager, and executive in every government agency. Each provides a measurable standard, with uniform and objective criteria, that evaluate the design and application of best practice operational practices. The systematic use of quality standards provides the first-ever opportunity for an organizational scorecard, that measures the extent of quality practice in government. 

Why are these standards necessary for highly effective government?

The development of high-performing learning organizations depends on defining and testing a best practice operational structure that is specific to every one of its branches, divisions, and operating units. This can’t easily be done with existing frameworks, which depend on top-down application of uniform organizational practices, such as ISO 9001 or Baldrige. The application of Quality Standards is from the bottom to the top, and requires every supervisor and manager to develop a process map or a system map that defines the critical steps or milestones of value creation within that program area. It applies a cycle of learning that is based on a defined approach and deployment, combined with periodic evaluation and update or improvement. The development of indicators and measures of success cements the practices of learning and improvement. The application of system management at the executive level ensures organizational alignment.

Can’t we do the same thing with organization-wide deployment of Lean Six Sigma? 
No. The problem with most traditional Lean Six Sigma and DMAIC improvement efforts is that they are not sustainable over the long term, and require a continual “push” from leadership. Because their success requires each practitioner to dedicate current effort for longer-term gain, busy organizations often curtail these best practices to resolve short-term crises. If executive recognition ever wavers, or if leadership changes, the commitment to best practice operation also disappears. The use of Quality Standards changes this dynamic, by allowing executives to create a report on the existence and use of quality practices in their organization, so that executives are at last able to “see” where individual managers are maintaining best practice, and where efforts are lapsing. It will also allow organizations to create external reviews, and audit organizations to report on the continuing commitment to quality practices within every government organization. This reporting ensures that Lean and DMAIC practices are established, maintained, and sustained. No longer will the practice of quality be "invisible."

How do we know they work?
Quality Standards have been endorsed by the Government Division of the American Society for Quality as an international best practice standard for Government. A recent white paper of the National Academy of Public Administration on Strengthening Organizational Performance in Government has also endorsed the standards. The Process Management Standard is a part of the Process Management Handbook for the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, and numerous government jurisdictions have found them to be a tool for organizational capacity reviews, both to evaluate current efforts and to offer further suggestions on the means and methods of improvement.

How can we get started?
This book provides the logic and approach behind the standards, and introduces each with its evaluation criteria, and the scoring plan. It is important and foundational, for those who will be using the standards, for those reviewing them, and for leadership who want to understand the benefits and the logic being followed. Each organization using the standards should plan to provide introductory training for all its managers and supervisors, to help them in identifying the key processes and systems that drive organizational results, and to help them define best operational practices for each. The effort should then transition to periodic review of each defined process and system, both to ensure the integrity of the approach, and to evaluate the next steps to its improvement.

What are the changes in the second edition book?
The second edition includes the newest revision to the system management standard, which applies to the work of executive managers, program office managers, and project managers. It completes the organizational framework by challenging those managers to define milestones of value creation relative to the work of their office, with the causes of success in each milestone. In addition, it allows the development of operational metrics and indicators. It is through the integrated definition of key processes and systems that an entire agile framework can be completed. The second edition looks ahead to the role of leadership in developing excellent performance through application of the Aligned Leadership Objectives Standard. 

Do any readers currently work in the public sector? What do you think of Richard's thoughts?  Have you adopted these quality standards in your organization?

Combining Statistical Design and Statistical Control -- Can it Work?

Kieron Dey recently published a book titled Competitive Innovation and Improvement: Statistical Design and Control, which explains how to combine two widely known statistical methods — statistical design and statistical control — in a manner that can solve any business, government, or research problem quickly with sustained results.I spoke with Kieron last month and asked him: "Why did you decide to write this book and what makes it unique?" Here is is his complete answer:

I first got the idea about separating tiny signals from large amounts of noise from time spent in radar design, and I wondered why similar was not much used in industry to solve problems. Where statistical design was used, it tended to be on a small scale and not much in processes involving lots of people.

The idea to combine statistical design and control came from a book on survey sampling. This fusion was controversial for years among professionals, and for no reason. Everything used is in the literature.

“Intent-to-treat" is also used throughout (which means, roughly, allowing an element of laissez-faire to get real world results, not forced ones that don't hold longer term).

Simultaneous design (where more than one design runs at once, overlaid) was added in 2012. The simultaneous designs have been important in cross-channel optimization in retail and in complex healthcare improvements. This was the last addition as the theory was tricky and it finally fell in place in 2011. It found that what had seemed weaknesses (where interactions across designs might be a problem) in fact hid a large strength, which is in Chapter 8 with real cases. The method had to be simplified so that users could apply easily.

Finally, the scientific method is used throughout (which folds nicely into comparative effectiveness research, DMAIC or PDCA, etc.), and the book explains what (and how simple) this is. The scientific method allows the same method to be used for existing and new processes: hence the “improvement and innovation” in the title. Innovation becomes less elusive in this way – it can be designed rather than waiting for inspiration. In addition, getting back to pure, simple science means using right-brain (creativity) as well as left (analytic) so more people can contribute in a valuable manner for the enterprise (which can be business, industry, research or government).

There is no mathematical notation so that anyone can read and use these well-established methods. Scientists and researchers will find Chapter 8 challenging on scientific method and randomization, so there's something for everyone. Mathematics is used a lot behind the scenes of the book but the real world is used more: to understand how businesses work and make them work better. 

There are about 20 exercises peppered through the book, for the reader to accelerate what would be learned in field experience and get started on real business competitive problems. 

Surprisingly, it turns out to be a management tool, not one technical people alone can accomplish; it’s not top down though and the book explains why. 

If anyone has read Kieron Dey's book, please feel free to post your comments here.