I, Problem

The sphere of problem solving is replete with myths and folklore.  Tales abound of lone ranger problem solving gunslingers, the lone genius and even the solitary savant.  There is an underlying assumption that a good problem-solver is a fast problem-solver and that for every complex problem there is always a ‘right answer’ as long as you work hard enough to find it.
 
But as I point out in ‘Better Than Yesterday’, problem solving is a team game.  Great organisations never treat problem-solving as an individual pursuit.  They assemble great teams, set them clear goals and allocate the resources that are essential to uncovering solutions that will be effective and enduring.
 
They know that problem-solving always requires collaboration and sharing. If you think about it for a moment, even the simplest products, processes and implications are beyond the capacity of a solitary individual to fully understand.
 
In the 1958 essay ‘I, Pencil’, Leonard Read set out to illustrate that even the humble pencil could only come to fruition via the contributions of disparate and hitherto isolated bodies of knowledge.  Some people knew how to cut down trees, others how to mine graphite. Some knew how to work the wood and others how to create and apply paint. Some knew how to design and others how to market. Indeed, some needed to know how to produce the foods and drinks that kept the workforces healthy and warm.  The list goes on. His conclusion is uncompromising; the answer lies in collective knowledge.
 
What is true for product innovation is also true for problem-solving.  Attempting to solve complex problems as an individual trapped within an organisational silo is stressful, fatiguing and worst of all, completely ineffective.  When I train groups of problem-solvers I’ll often find two or even three centuries of combined experience and knowledge in just a dozen professionals. Yet when complex problems present, they are asked to act alone, unable to take full advantage of this incredible resource.
 
When you think about it, this is remarkable. Organisations go to astonishing lengths, and very great expense to recruit and develop extraordinary talent. Alongside this they push for ever-greater networking and integration of their hardware, systems and processes. Yet when a complex problem occurs, one which might easily spread from production, to customer service, through to finance, marketing and sales, ultimately impacting on reputation, revenue and regulation, a lone problem-solver is called upon to make sense of it all.
 
It seems that problem-solving, like leadership and innovation, suffers from the ‘great man theory’, namely that great things happen because of the actions of some individual scholar, priest, chief, king or commander.  This is mostly untrue when it comes to leadership and it is definitely untrue in the sphere of problem-solving.  Just as it’s often said that there is no ‘I’ in ‘team’, there is certainly no ‘I’ in ‘problem’ either.  If you are an experienced manager you probably already know this and have a good sense that capable individuals, even those with an exceptional skillset, rarely, if ever, match the problem-solving ability of well-chosen teams, with their multiple perspectives and diverse thinking.
 
But it’s not always easy to assemble an effective team. Building great problem-solving teams takes more than just ‘stacking’ our brightest and best professionals into a team and expecting incremental improvements. The very best problem-solving teams benefit from diversity; broader specialist knowledge combined with complementary skills, different backgrounds and alternative perspectives. Interestingly, recent reports suggest that upwards of 90 percent of engineering and scientific papers are now collaborative, the medical profession isn’t far behind and likewise significant financial reports.  Just a generation ago almost all these papers were solo in authorship. Today they have multiple signatories.  It seems that our world of significantly greater complexity and scrutiny demands far more sophisticated collaboration.
 
Organisations that master effective problem-solving recognise this and they allocate time and resources appropriately. Just as they do with all major planning or project management challenges. Effective problem-solving is an investment that offers enormous dividends if managed, resourced and rewarded well. Above all, problem-solving can be extremely rewarding. If the process is positioned as positive and prestigious, the best people will want to participate and will take ownership of the solutions and their implementation.  One can only speculate as to the ongoing and cumulative impacts of this approach.
 
Ask Yourself:
Do your teams have diverse experiences and offer you multiple perspectives?


Have you enabled them to communicate effectively, either face to face or virtually?


Have they got the time to look beyond the frontline symptoms?
 
Key Point:
When a problem appears you rarely see all of it.  Solving it requires carefully assembled, well trained, motivated and adequately resourced teams.  Done well, it is amongst the greatest investment your organisation can ever make.