Whether in business or on a personal level, we are all in search of solutions to problems, but something usually gets in the way. What is the obstacle? Typically, it's ourselves. Most of us do not want to be told that, but, it is true. Once started on finding a solution to a large problem, there may be many more steps in finding a great solution than was originally anticipated. As a result, the first deadline is completely missed. We become discouraged, frustrated, and eventually abandon the great solution as being unobtainable only to settle on a lesser half solution. By default, we choose to modify the situation or behavior without actually solving the problem.
One of the main reasons for not finding great solutions to problems is because the problem is not specifically defined well enough to be able to recognize the steps it would take to solve it. Consider, if a problem can be broken down into enough steps, the solution becomes easier to obtain just like shifting into the lowest gear of a bicycle while going up a steep hill. A true solution to a problem is one that resolves the root cause and prevents the problem from reoccurring. An answer to a problem is one that provides a solution for when the problem returns.
The danger of not defining the problem in sufficient detail is that the pursuit of a solution will exhaust too much time, energy and money in chasing possible solutions of the problem and taking attention away from the most probable root cause.
Take XYZ Company as an example, compare the next two statements of the problem. XYZ needs to achieve a 10% cost reduction on materials. While 10% on materials sounds specific, it does not illustrate where to focus attention to get it. Whereas, adding more detail would be, XYZ needs to achieve a 10% cost reduction on plastic resin costs for the widget product line. The focus has been clarified that it is the resin portion of the widget product line that will be reduced verses the aluminum portion of the widget product line. This clarity identifies which suppliers to include in the project, which product line and what processes to evaluate.
Many managers may argue that using the general problem statement of 10% on materials has more potential because there is a risk that just 10% of plastic resin costs on the widget line is not sufficient for overall company goals. Being nonspecific allows for more possible cost reductions across multiple areas that "may" result in an overall greater cost reduction than just 10%. While this perspective is possible, it is not as probable as being specific in targeting resources to obtain the specific cost reduction. Part of being specific about solving a problem is that its solution is worth the resources of solving it. Through research of materials costs, it should have been determined that reducing the plastic resin materials costs on the widget line would yield the greater overall cost reduction rather than chasing a 3% reduction in aluminum components, for example.
Using this technique of being very specific in defining a problem automatically illustrates many steps in determining how to create the solution. It also saves time, energy and money in not chasing after symptoms of the overall problem.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
You are a member of Helen Ewing's Fan Club!
tweet this!