CHAPTER 9

Problem-solving models

WHY DO WE NEED PROBLEM-SOLVING MODELS?

It might surprise you that most managers are thought to be
addressing between 50 and 70 problems at any one time.^ There is
also evidence, from brain biology, that most of us have difficulty
juggling more than eight or nine significant topics at once - and at
least one of those w i l l be home life - you w i l l begin to recognize
that some of these problems are relatively insignificant.
In many professions, a structured approach is taught as a basic
requirement for the work. Examples include the police force, medi-
cine, law, engineering and the military. I n recent years, there has
been a growing interest i n the use of systematic approaches to day-
to-day work. This has culminated i n the international standard,
ISO9000, w h i c h is really a structure for structures!
Whole professions have emerged based on structured
approaches. A few decades ago work study offered a means of
improving productivity based on systematic approaches to work.
More recently we saw the growth of systems analysis as informa-
tion technology began to take off.
There are many reasons for the prevalence of structured
approaches:

1. They remove ambiguity.

2. They reduce individual bias.
3. They reduce the need for experience and judgement.
4. They ensure rigour.
5. They can improve communication.
6. They facilitate handover.
144 Problem Solving

7. They make third party assessment easier.

8. They give an impression that work is 'on track'.
9. They avoid extraneous activity.

Clearly, such models do have a role to play, but they should be used
with an open mind. There are probably just as many ways of
working in an unstructured way as there are in a structured one.
Simply because we have 'always done it that way' doesn't mean
that we should continue to do so today.

THE PHASES OF A PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL

Many different problem-solving models are taught on management
development courses. They are all essentially the same, despite the
claims of their proponents. Any problem-solving model begins
with a definition of the problem, then uses divergent thinking tech-
niques to develop possible solutions before using convergent tech-
niques to identify the best solution, implement it and test its
effectiveness.
The divergent phase expands the problem. The team members
define what they are trying to tackle and determine some bound-
aries. They decide how to measure their success and find out as
much as they can about the problem as they have defined it. Most
of the creative effort is concentrated on this phase. The person who
is acting in the role of Co-ordinator (as defined by Belbin, 1981)
will be calling particularly on people with Plant and Shaper
tendencies. The techniques used by the team will try to make use of
their right-brain faculties.
It is widely reported that Japanese managers spend more time in
this phase than those in the West do. Whether this is really the case
is difficult to establish, but there are a number of techniques which
originated in Japan that do encourage their users to spend more
time expanding the problem. One example is QFD, a technique
developed at the Kobe Shipyards as a tool for improving the
customer focus of products and services. For a thorough explana-
tion of this technique and its application, see Wilson (1993].^
The convergent phase common to problem-solving models
allows the team to develop its solution. The immediate reaction of
students on MBA courses is often surprise that convergent thinking
should be applied to develop a solution. They have been brought
 Problem-solving models 145

up to expect some flash of inspiration, a radical side-step, or lateral

thinking.
As Conan Doyle illustrated in his Sherlock Holmes stories, most
problems are resolved when all the facts are known about them. It
is necessary to possess keen powers of observation and to analyse
the facts thoroughly - then solutions become very obvious. In
many cases teams find that simply describing their problem prop-
erly gives them the solution.
Thus the convergent phase of a problem-solving model is more
concerned with developing the practical aspects of implementing a
solution that became obvious much earlier. In doing this the left-
brain powers of reasoning and structured thought will be called on.
The key is to develop solutions that can be put into practice and
to find the necessary resources. The team roles called for here
will be Monitor/Evaluators, Team Workers, Company Workers, and
Completer/Finishers.
Again, this is often regarded as a stage of low effort in Japanese
businesses, whereas in the West not to invest effort here is often
seen as a fault - 'fiddling while Rome burns'! Figure 9.1 illustrates
these different approaches to problem-solving.
I'm happy with the model I already have!

Design effort

Western "^"-^^ ^ ^ - ^ Eastern ^\

/ approach approach \

Time to completion II

Figure 9.1 The Japanese-Western dichotomy over

problem solving
146 Problem Solving

Problem-solving models are often taught on courses early in a

person's career, but are not adequately understood and therefore
are not applied. To help you recall your ovra training and see the
similarities between approaches. Table 9.1 is a comparison of the
most common approaches. The GOAL model has been taught on
courses influenced by the work of W Edwards Deming; Coverdale
run training programmes on 'systematic working'; and Francis's
approach is taught at Henley - The Management College.
A frequent difficulty encountered with problem-solving models,
and the reason that most solutions created using them don't work,
is that people omit stages from the process. They may jump from
identifying the problem to deciding on a solution without
exploring alternatives, or they may not include a final evaluation
process.

Activity 9.1
If you have come across other models, such as those of Kepner-
Tregoe,-' annotate Table 9.1 accordingly. Try analysing a successful
project and ask yourself what happened at e a c h stage.

PRIDE
The approach that I prefer is the PRIDE model. This is a variation of
the PRICE model developed by Ken Blanchard.* It does not have
any magical powers. As you will see from Table 9.1, it has nothing
that other models do not also have. However, being a mnemonic it
is easier to remember without notes and is therefore more likely to
be used.
The basic stages of the PRIDE model are described below.
Subsequent chapters will consider the different tools and tech-
niques used in its application.

PINPOINT the problem

Before trying to tackle any problem it is important to move away
from its symptoms - which are usually seen as the problem by most
people anyway - to the underlying issue. Even with a very clear
brief, most problem-solving teams will have a range of ideas on the
'real' issue.
 Problem-solving models 147

Table 9.1 Comparison of some common problem-solving models

PRIDE Blanchard Franclx Coverdale GOAL

Pinpoint Pinpoint Tuning in Purposes To decide which
problem will be
addressed first
(or next)
Objective End results To arrive a t a
setting statement that
describes the
problem in terms
of what it is
specifically,
where it occurs,
when It happens,
and its extent

Success Success
measures criteria or
results
Record Record Information Information To develop a
collection complete picture
of all the
possible causes
of the problem

Inform Involve Decision- To agree on the

yourselves making basic cause(s) of
and others the problem
Decide Planning Plan To develop on
effective a n d
implementable
solution a n d
action plan
Effect Coach Action Action, To implement the
Do it! solution a n d
establish
required
monitoring
procedures a n d
charts
Evaluate Evaluate Review to
improve
148 Problem Solving

For example, early in my career I was asked to help reduce absen-

teeism in one group of employees in a particular company. Even
phrased more positively - improving their attendance - this was
not the real issue. The real problem lay in a number of policies that
the employees perceived as undermining their status within the
company.

RECORDING information
After defining the problem clearly, you then gather information to
help you understand it better. Some authors will tell you to stick to
'facts' and not get sidetracked by opinions. To us an opinion is one
person's version of the facts and has just as much value in this data
collection process. Exactly which 'facts' are needed has to be
decided by the team. Several approaches to this are described in
Chapter 11.

INFORMING ourselves and others

Armed with a list of requirements, the group members set about
gathering information. The object is to expand their understanding
of the problem. In doing so they will be involved in contact with
other people. This is often an opportunity to prepare the ground for
testing solutions and to improve people's overall understanding of
the change process. For some reason, groups sometimes develop
elaborate plots to avoid telling others what they are doing and why.
This does not work and should be avoided.
Data selection, data collection and analysis are all important
steps in the development of an effective solution. They are also
potentially the most expensive and easiest to get wrong. The team
may need to prepare itself carefully by looking at techniques of
phrasing questions, designing questionnaires and planning
surveys.^

DECIDING on and DESIGNING a solution

The last phase of divergent thinking that the team is involved in is
devising solutions to the problem that will respond to the facts that
they have gathered. This process is often not as difficult as it
sounds - solutions tend to suggest themselves out of the data
collected.
 Problem-solving models 149

EFFECT the solution

Although the team may not be expected to put its recommenda-
tions into practice, it does need to devise appropriate ways of intro-
ducing them. Sometimes this can call for considerable effort and
should not be underestimated. After all, many businesses recognize
the need to reduce their bureaucracy; the real problem is how to
achieve a reduction.

EVALUATE the results

No solution is complete without a method of assessing its impact.
The second by-product of the data collection process is the identi-
fication of a small number of key indicators that will show whether
or not the team's recommendations have been successful.

DO WE NEED TO REPORT TO SOMEONE ELSE?

Once they have completed their study, developed their preferred
solution(s), and devised plans for implementation and monitoring,
then some teams will need to report back to their sponsors.
Usually the team's report will consist of three elements:

• a physical presentation;
• copies of the material used in the presentation;
• a supporting document, containing the important data and
evidence.

The presentation is crucial. A poorly made presentation will be

uninspiring, may reinforce doubts that the approach will not work,
and can set the organization back a long way. Most teams use
straightforward presentation materials, but there are exceptions.
Among the alternatives are videos, scale models, site tours and
visits to other organizations (Disney seems very popular!).
Some time needs to be set aside to prepare the report, and the
process should begin virtually as soon as the team has agreed its
primary tasks. It is important to provide the sponsors with copies
of the presentation material. We are often asked whether this
should be done before or after the presentation. Usually teams
prefer to give the materials out at the beginning of the presentation
150 Problem Solving

so that the audience can make notes. Unfortunately there are a few
people who will turn to the back of a pack, read the conclusions
and then ask obscure questions about information that is going to
be given later in the presentation. If you suspect that you have one
of these people in your audience, prepare beforehand and be ready
to put them in their place politely!
Questions are probably best handled at the end of the presenta-
tion, when they can be directed to other members of the team.
Finally the report should be given to the sponsors. It is usually best
to take a copy for everyone rather than circulating a single copy.

NOTES
1 Mintzberg, H (1973) The Nature of Managerial Work, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs

2 Wilson, G B (1993) On Route to Perfection, I F S Publications, Bedford

3 Kepner, C H and Tregoe, B B (1986) 77ie Rational Manager, Kepner-

Tregoe, Boston

4 Blanchard, K and Lorber, R (1984) Putting the One Minute Manager to

Work, Willow Books, New York

5 Oppenheim, A N (1966) Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement,

Heinemann, London
THE PHASES OF A PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL

Figure 9.2 Overview of Chapter 9

pmiiM
SOLVING
GRAHAH WILSON

SECOND EDITION

Published in association with

PRICm\T[RHOU§E(bOPERS B

Reproduced by the copyright holder for study purposes.

(c) Graham Wilson, 1993, 2000

ISBN 074943032X

KOGAN
PAGE