8 Images

Creative Problem-Solving Approach

MANAGING MORE THAN ONE RIGHT ANSWER

Leading a group from “here” to “there” presupposes more than one right answer. Facilitation strives to articulate the best answer for each group of participants, eschewing the thought that some universal “best answer” exists.

When preparing for problem solving or gap analysis, the meeting designer alone bears a tremendous burden to design optimal meeting activities that will kindle consensus. No one can prove certainty about the future, so I’ll also recommend building different scenarios and ranges of possibilities. Therefore, creative thinking remains paramount for exceptional problem solving or gap analysis. Facilitators may be more challenged than ever, but this chapter will make it easier for you, especially once you learn how to manage “many-to-many.”

This Problem-Solving Approach solves problems by creating focus when there are many symptoms, many causes, many preventions, and many cures that ought to be considered. This Problem-Solving Approach also keeps participants, especially those who jump around, on track.

Many meetings waste time because they lack structure, not because they fail to generate some promising ideas. Meetings are challenged by people who never know when they are done, how they can measure their progress, and how much work remains to be done. They don’t know what they missed. They don’t know what they don’t know. This disciplined Problem-Solving Approach helps you to structure activities and ask precise questions that will unveil practical and obscure solutions.

Problem Definition

Early emphasis should not be on trying to solve the problem but instead on finding unusual ways of looking at and describing the problem situation. The more general the expression of a problem, the less likely it is to suggest answers. As the problem definition becomes more specific, it sharpens potential solutions.

NOTE: Problem definition is far more critical than most people understand. For example, while traveling on a deserted road, an automobile gets a flat tire. The occupants discover that there is no jack in the trunk. They define the problem as “finding a jack” and decide to walk to a station for a jack. Another automobile on the same road also blows a tire. The occupants of the second car also discover that there is no jack. They define the problem as “raising the automobile.” They see an old barn, push the auto there, raise it on a pulley, change the tire, and drive off while the occupants of the first car are still trudging toward the service station.1

While J. W. Getzels, who came up with this example, does not mention a third option, another group might push the vehicle to the side of the road and, using their hands, rocks, sticks, or different implements, dig a hole around the bad tire. The problem statement might more accurately reflect the need for “clear access to the axle and surrounding area,” rather than lifting the vehicle. Depending on the cause of the flat, there may be more problem definitions as well.

To create divergent solutions, vary the descriptions of the problem. When focused on describing the problem, using mountaineering as an analogy, you might consider the following:

First, consider rewriting or versioning problem statements:2

  • Broaden focus, restate the problem with larger context:
    • – Initial: Should I keep a diary?
    • Paraphrase: How do I create a permanent memory of our ascent?
  • Paraphrase, restate the problem using different words without losing original meaning:
    • – Initial: How can we limit congestion around the base camps?
    • Paraphrase: What can we consolidate to keep the congestion from growing?
  • Redirect focus, consciously change the scope:
    • – Initial: How do we get all our supplies to 16,000 feet?
    • Paraphrase: How do we reduce our consumption and need for supplies?
  • Reversal, turn the problem around:
    • – Initial: How can we discourage people from climbing this mountain?
    • Paraphrase: How can we get people to go to a different mountain?

Second, consider changing Perspectives (chapter 8), which stimulates other worthwhile aspects that further help detail and describe the problem. Mountaineers might embrace perspectives from their climbers, Sherpas, legal authority, nearby residents, other climbers, and so on.

PROCEDURE

Adapt the Problem-Solving Approach for your situation. This chapter explains the prototype for solving problems and analyzing gaps that gets us from where we are now to where we want to be in the future. I’ll use an example suggesting that an organization has determined that a problem of “burnout” permeates the Cybersecurity Department. We will use the Problem-Solving Approach to draft creative and practical solutions.

ILLUSTRATIVE DELIVERABLE

A solution of proposed actions to prevent, mitigate, and cure the causes of “burnout” within the Cybersecurity Department.

BASIC AGENDA

  1. Launch (Introduction) (chapter 5)
  2. Purpose of the Cybersecurity Department (description of ideal future state) (chapter 7)3
  3. “Burnout” (definition of problem and current state)
  4. Symptoms (externally observable factors)
  5. Causes
  6. Actions4
    • – Preventions (x-axis, Timeline 1)
    • – Cures (x-axis, Timeline 2)
    • – Cybersecurity Department Personnel (y-axis, Persona A)
    • – Management (y-axis, Persona B)
  7. Testing5
  8. Review and Wrap (Conclusion) (chapter 5)

1. Launch (Introduction) Agenda Step

Follow the seven-activity sequence fully explained in chapter 5.

Here is a brief exercise that illustrates the difficulty of managing information in our heads (that is, without external aids or other people).

Picture an apple in your “mind’s eye.” Can you do that? Can you picture 2 apples in your mind? Three? Clearly picture 3 apples in your mind. How about 4 . . . 5 . . . 6 . . . 10? Few people will claim they can hold the images of 10 or more apples at once.

Humans have cognitive limitations and limited information-processing capacity. Apples are basic objects. We can “hold” several of them in our mind at once. But increase the number, or increase their complexity (make that 1 large, red Macintosh apple; 3 smallish green Granny Smiths; 4 average-sized Fijis; and so on) and it becomes more difficult to hold a picture. In a group setting, each person might be picturing a different variety or size of apple and not be aware that his or her vision is entirely different from others’. When individuals and groups confront a complex decision, they may talk in circles without keeping track of all the details and relevant information, beyond what they can see in their mind’s eye.

Therefore, my Problem-Solving Approach respects the fact that all of us can recall, remember, and visualize more possibilities as a team than as individuals. Participants with specialized expertise also increase the likelihood that more accurate cause-effect relationships may be identified. Collaboratively, we are much more powerful, and that’s why nobody is smarter than everybody.

2. Purpose of the Cybersecurity Department (Future State)

PROCEDURE

Use Breakout Teams (chapter 6) and the Creativity Tool (next section) to illustrate the ideal state for the Cybersecurity Department, devoid of any “burn-out.” It might be faster and potentially more effective to build a narrative expression using the Purpose Tool (chapter 7).

If you use any illustrative tool, you develop some good “eye candy” for posting throughout the session. Plan to use the logic of Categorizing (chapter 6) and Bookend Rhetoric (chapter 7) when you convert any illustrations into narrative expressions. Either way, narrative or illustrative, be prepared to use the Definition Tool (chapter 6) to socialize understanding about terms or phrases used by the participants.

NOTE: By confirming the purpose of the future state or the ideal condition, we are describing the way things ought to be when there is no problem, when everything is working according to design.

Creativity Tool

WHY?

Use the Creativity Tool during the ideation or Listing activity of Brainstorming (chapter 6). Requiring participants to illustrate their answers enables them to express complex ideas more easily, even when they prefer to do it narratively. The Creativity Tool is especially beneficial for developing visions of the business or organization; use when defining terms or solutions, especially intangible products and services.

Image

Figure 8.1. Creativity Tool Example

PROCEDURE

Creativity allows each team to draw many illustrative answers to one specific question or provide many solutions for one specific scenario (figure 8.1). For complex topics, Creativity frequently takes less time than getting participants to write down narrative descriptions.

  • Use Breakout Teams (chapter 6). Plan how you want to blend them.
  • Provide a time limit, flip chart paper (or Mural or Miro), and colored markers.
  • When finished, have each team present their drawings. Use Bookend Rhetoric (chapter 7) for quickly identifying commonalities or items that may be extremely unique. Keep drawings mounted. Do not mark on them.
  • Separately, document participants’ narrative explanations. Get feedback and confirm that your narrative reflections are accurate and complete.

When you use Creativity early during your session, mount participants’ output as wallpaper and they will refer to it during the session. Since teams, not individuals, create the output, you provide timid participants with permission to speak freely by enabling them to speak about what their team created.

VISION EXPRESSIONS

  • Draw a picture of how the organization looks today.
  • Draw a picture of how you would like the organization to look.
  • Draw your vision of where you are going with the business.

NOTE: You can use one or more of the prompts listed here or use your own. If you have the teams draw pictures of both today and the future, you empower them with the ability to compare and contrast.

3. Problem State (“Burnout”)

PROCEDURE

I would use the Definition Tool (chapter 6). There are other right answers. However, make sure you know what your deliverable looks like. To me, it looks like five responses for prompts from the Definition Tool:

  1. Is not? (list)
  2. Description (sentence)
  3. Characteristics? (list)
  4. Illustration (drawing)
  5. Examples (narrative descriptions, paragraph each for two examples)

NOTE: Fully define the problem state or condition, building consensus around the way things are at present. This Agenda Step could be inserted ahead of the “ideal state.” Do what feels natural to you.

I prefer to describe a “solution,” then agree on the problem, and use the remaining time to get us from here (problem) to there (solution). Some argue that cybersecurity personnel might be bitching and moaning when the session begins, so let them get it off their chests by covering the problem first.

ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE

You may want to use the Force Field Analysis Tool (next section). If the goals, objectives, and measures of the department are clear, Force Field Analysis helps build mutual understanding around forces, both controllable and uncontrollable, that are hindering or impeding participants’ efforts to reach their target goals.

Force Field Analysis Tool

WHY?

Force Field Analysis improves upon a similar tool called “pros and cons.” Force Field Analysis identifies and prioritizes actions based on opportunities for improvement. The creator, Kurt Lewin, viewed Force Field Analysis as a change management remediation, when change is not occurring quickly enough or the change occurring seems to lack clear direction.

Force Field Analysis makes it easier for groups to organize their thinking while encouraging thoughtful exploration. Once supportive and hindering forces are identified, the group analyzes impact, leading to actions that reinforce the positive and mitigate the negative forces.

PROCEDURES

Force Field Analysis begins by identifying the objectives, CTQs (Critical to Quality), or the targets of change. So, facilitate clear understanding about the objectives of the change. Next, for each discrete objective (typically built in advance of a meeting and provided in a pre-read as a slide or handout), ask the following questions, one at a time:

  • What is hindering us from reaching this (specific target) (negative, or forces preventing change)?
    • – Environmental forces (for example, ask “What environmental forces are hindering changes that will deter us from reaching our objectives?)
    • – Structural or organizational forces
    • – Technological forces
    • – Individual forces
  • What is helping us move toward this target (positive forces supporting change)?
    • – Repeat using each of the four forces from above.
  • Use additional forces related to Perspectives (chapter 8).

NOTE: Use the Perspectives Tool by selecting from the more than 30 points of view that will prompt for additional forces participants might consider.

ALTERNATIVE 1

Participants’ responses generate two lists (positive, supporting forces and negative, hindering forces). Adapt the philosophy that it is easier to remove obstacles (hindrances) than to push harder (supports). Focus conversation on what we can do differently to overcome each hindrance, one at a time.

Once actions have been clarified, you may need to prioritize them. When you have more than a dozen actions, consider the Pareto principle (the 80-20 rule). If so, use PowerBalls (chapter 7), Perceptual Maps (chapter 7), or the Decision Matrix Tool (chapter 7) to prioritize. Note that your objectives are criteria, and actions are your options.

ALTERNATIVE 2

Associate each support or hindrance with an impact weight. A scale of 1 through 5 is commonly used, where 5 has greater influence. You could also force-rank based on how many items are in each column. Either way, assign the hindrances negative numbers, with –5 more harmful than –2. Compare the totals for an overall look, to the extent that the total for support factors may or may not exceed the total for hindrances being faced.

Image

Figure 8.2. Force Field Analysis

When building responses, begin with actions to oppose the hindrances. Time permitting, look at additional actions that improve leverage for the support factors.

NOTE: My experience has shown that some hindrances require further Definition (chapter 6), some may be combined, and some forces may be so complex as to require Root Cause Analysis (chapter 8).

RIFFS AND VARIATIONS

By scoring the power or impact of the forces, with scaling from 1 through 5, you can graphically allow for the length or width of the arrows to indicate the relative weight of the supporting and hindering forces, as in figure 8.2.

4. Symptoms

PROCEDURE

What does your deliverable from this Agenda Step look like? To us, it looks like a list—and I am not a fan of lists. More important, what are you going to do with this list, and what questions need to be asked to convert this list of symptoms into an understanding of potential causes?

FORTIFICATION

Change the way participants look at the problem by changing Perspectives (next section) to identify symptoms they may have missed. The Thinking Hats Tool (chapter 8) provides additional perspectives on the situation.

NOTE: Identify the potential symptoms that make it easy to characterize or confirm the problem or issue. Consider symptoms to be “externally identifiable factors” that can be seen and observed objectively, such as “tardiness.” Some symptoms were captured during a description of the problem, but certainly not all of them.

Perspectives Tool

This tool is remarkably powerful and underused. Change participants’ Perspectives to resolve an impasse or to capture innovative ideas previously not considered.

DETAILED PROCEDURES

When you ask your participants to “walk in someone else’s shoes” by embracing a new perspective, you stimulate participants to change their point of view. More perspectives create more ideas, and more ideas drive decision quality. You may ask individuals or Breakout Teams (chapter 6) to each take on new perspectives. I’ve personally witnessed remarkable success using two specific Breakout Teams: monasteries and organized crime (it can be like night and day). I’m aware of alumni who love contrasting the Apple, Linux, and Microsoft perspectives.

The inputs provided by shifting perspectives are not necessarily definitive. By challenging and exploring them, we can surface problems and solutions that were not previously considered.

TEAM PERSPECTIVES AND PROCEDURE

WW_D: What Would ________ Do? Insert analogs of famous people, organizations, or teams. Ask, “What should we add from the perspective of ________?” (fill in the blank using one of the items in this section).

  • Use Breakout Teams to develop responses contrasted with other specific points of view, such as the following:
    • – A college or university compared with the military-industrial complex
    • – A monastery compared with the Mafia or organized crime
    • – Bill Gates (or Microsoft) compared with Steve Jobs (or Apple)
    • – Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Sergey Brin (Google), or Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)
    • – Genghis Khan (warlike) compared with Mohandas Gandhi (peaceful)
    • – Or create your own based on driving forces in your situation, such as antifragile technology (gets stronger), ants (collaborative), Drake or Lizzo (unrepresented voices), or weather (unpredictable yet returns to homeostasis)
  • Then compare output from each team focusing on similarities that become symptoms or factors previously unrecognized and differences that should be explored and reconciled as valid possibilities.

NOTE: Use any of the perspectives suggested or make up your own perspectives to help participants focus their input from a specific point of view.

INDIVIDUAL OR TEAM PERSPECTIVES

The 6-M’s, 7-P’s, or 5-S’s are frequently used as the main “bones” in an Ishikawa diagram. Take and choose from among the following 30 perspectives that are most germane and compelling to your situation. Also combine perspectives, including the classic views from de Bono’s Thinking Hats.

The 6-M’s perspectives:

  • Machines
  • Manpower
  • Materials
  • Measurements
  • Methods
  • Mother Nature

The 7-P’s perspectives:

  • Packaging
  • Place
  • Policies
  • Positioning
  • Price
  • Procedure
  • Promotion

The 5-S’s perspectives:

  • Safety
  • Skills
  • Suppliers
  • Surroundings
  • Systems

Perspectives (trends) from the World Future Society

  • Demographic perspectives:
    • – Family composition
    • – Public health issues
    • – Specific population groups (and so on)
  • Economic perspectives:
    • – Business
    • – Careers
    • – Finance
    • – Management
    • – Work (and so on)
  • Environmental perspectives:
    • – Ecosystems
    • – Habitats
    • – Resources
    • – Species (and so on)
  • Governmental perspectives:
    • – Laws
    • – Politics
    • – Public policy
    • – World affairs (and so on)
  • Societal perspectives:
    • – Culture
    • – Education
    • – Leisure
    • – Lifestyle
    • – Religion
    • – Values (and so on)
  • Technological perspectives:
    • – Discoveries and effects
    • – Innovation and effects
    • – Science and effects (and so on)

Six value or utility levers perspectives:

  • Convenience
  • Customer productivity
  • Environmental friendliness
  • Fun and image
  • Risk
  • Simplicity

Seven Thinking Hats: see Thinking Hats perspectives in the next section.

NOTE: Perspectives can be used so many ways. For examples, use four perspectives to create a highly robust problem-solving panel. The intersection of common factors they may identify provides the basis for a MVP (minimum viable process or minimum viable product).

For example, if mountaineers, Sherpas, and legal authorities are all concerned with garbage and trash left behind by previous climbing parties, consensus about the importance of trash control is instantly apparent.

Thinking Hats Tool

WHY?

Use a structured Tool, inspired by Dr. Edward de Bono, that leverages existing ideas into new, better, different, or more substantial ideas.6 Refine and bolster your ideas by asking questions from the following perspectives—for example, “Let’s focus on the White Hat perspective. What are the facts and evidence?”

PROCEDURE

Thinking Hats forces perspective to capture additional, and frequently innovative, ideas and suggestions. Study the perspectives shown in figure 8.3, which are defined here:

  • Black Hat (risk averse)
    • – The logical negative, careful, cautious, and judgmental; contrary to the Yellow and Green Hats
  • Blue Hat (process control):
    • – The organizing hat (from start to finish) that controls the use of the other hats; contrary to the Green and Red Hats
  • Green Hat (creativity):
    • – Associated with creativity, energy, fertility, growth, and innovative ideas; contrary to the Black and Blue Hats
  • Red Hat (emotional):
    • – The intuitive view, feeling, “gut,” and hunches; contrary to the White and Blue Hats
  • Royal Hat (ownership):
    • – Committed and invested, subjectively seeking objectivity
  • Yellow Hat (risk begone)
    • – The logical positive, hopeful, optimistic, sunny, and positive; contrary to the Black Hat
  • White Hat (neutral objectivity):
    • – Neutral and objective, concerned with data, facts, figures, and information (evidence-based); contrary to the Green and Red Hats

Image

Figure 8.3. Six Thinking Hats + One

Assign a hat (perspective) to Breakout Teams (chapter 6), the entire group, or each person, and then rotate the hats to encourage more ideas. Some claim better results from insisting that everyone wear the same color hat at the same time because it ensures everyone is looking from the same direction at the same time.

Use every hat as often as you like. Nothing prohibits you from returning to hats you have already used once.

There is no need to use every hat. Provide varying sequences of two, three, or more hats at once.

As meeting leader, permit either a pre-set order or one that is evolving. Do not, however, ask participants for the sequence (no facilitating context).

You may also use Post-it notes to have participants individually provide a bunch of ideas. If so, transcribe them so that they are legible by all participants, during a quick break.

Modify the definitions based on your own situation. However, be sure to post some type of visual legend or graphic prompt to explain the perspectives that you are seeking. See Dr. Edward de Bono’s work for other riffs and variations.

5. Causes

What question or questions are you going to ask that will convert your list of symptoms into potential causes?

Technically, at this point, you might conduct Root Cause Analysis (next section). Another popular technique is called an After-Action Review (chapter 8) because it focuses on issues and not people. On a practical note, you might launch a Six Sigma project to identify leading indicators and other objective measurements. During most meetings, however, we could simply take each symptom, one at a time, and ask:

What are all the likely causes of [insert symptom; for example, “redeye”]?

Most important, you cannot ask, “What are all the probable causes for all of these symptoms?” That unstructured question would have people jumping around with replies such as “insufficient training,” “wrong tools,” “fatigue” (and so on). While valid ideas can be suggested this way, if you use an unstructured style, you simply don’t know what you don’t know. An unstructured style asks for all the plausible causes for all the possible symptoms (many to many). Structure recommends focusing on one symptom at a time, asking for all the probable causes of each symptom, one at a time.

Question: “What are all the probable causes of redeye?”

Replies:

  1. “Air quality. When I’m working overtime, they shut down the air-conditioning and this building gets stale really quick.”
  2. “Allergies. Can’t help it but I get sneezy and ugly during the spring when all the pollen starts flying around.”
  3. “Fatigue. They are working us 70 hours a week and my eyes always look like this when I get four hours of sleep.”

What does your deliverable look like when you are finished identifying causes? It looks like another list—since each symptom may have more than one probable cause, an even longer list. While there could be some overlap (for example, fatigue), after Clarifying (chapter 7) your list, what are you going to do with this clean list of causes? You could prioritize, of course, but what questions will you ask to convert the most important causes into an actionable plan?

To draft a detailed and actionable plan, the secret is in the specificity of the questions you ask. You cannot ask an unstructured, global-hunger question, such as “So, what’s the plan?” or “What should we do about it?”

Root Cause Analysis Tool

WHY?

The Ishikawa diagram (also known as a fishbone diagram; see figure 8.4) provides a systematic way of looking at potential causes or contributing factors of undesirable effects and is frequently referred to as a “cause and effect diagram.” When you facilitate Root Cause Analysis, the starting illustration resembles the skeleton of a fish with large bones (categories—remember my explanation of the big X’s) and small bones (specific potential causes within each category—remember my explanation of the little x’s).

Image

Figure 8.4. Fishbone Diagram

The Fishbone Diagram helps the team focus on the most important causes. It would be helpful to work with a Six Sigma Green Belt, Black Belt, or Master Black Belt (MBB) who can help with this Tool and provide statistical confidence about factors and measures.

PROCEDURE

  • Draw the primary fishbone diagram.
  • Agree on the purpose of the item or issue to change, if fine-tuned and fully working.
  • List the problem or issue to be studied in the “head of the fish”—for example, “noisy mufflers.”
  • Label each major bone of the fish by selecting the most appropriate Perspectives (chapter 8) or primary bones, such as Tools, People, Method, and Data shown illustratively above (taken from among 30 categories explained with the Perspectives Tool).
  • Use an idea-generating Tool to identify contributing factors within each category that could cause the problem, issue, or effect being studied.
    • – For example, the facilitator could ask, “What are the possible tools issues affecting or causing the effect?” (for example, for noisy mufflers: “over-torqueing the bolts causing metal fatigue”)
    • – For example, the facilitator could ask, “What are the possible people issues affecting or causing the effect?” (for example, “drivers going too fast over speed bumps”)
    • – Or the facilitator could ask, “What are the possible method issues affecting or causing the effect?” (for example, “stacking mufflers outside before installation and they begin to oxidize or rust before installation”)
    • – Or the facilitator could ask, “What are the data issues affecting or causing the effect?” (for example, “the metallurgical reports from our supplier are not accurate or consistent”)
    • – Complete each category until you no longer get useful information when you ask, “What other issues could be causing the effect?”
  • Repeat this procedure with any additional categories that are identified until you develop and create a final list of potential causes.
  • Consider prioritizing the potential causes. If so, know in advance which Tool you want to use to prioritize, typically PowerBalls (chapter 7). Consider ranking the causes from high to low priority with the first item being the “most probable” or “most impactful” cause.
  • Repetitive and more frequent causes may require more extensive analysis and should carry a higher weight.
  • Separately confirm the decision criteria available from a prior initiative (such as cost and customer satisfaction). If not available, build the criteria for evaluation.
  • Separate the SMART from the fuzzy criteria.
  • Prioritize the criteria using PowerBalls with Bookend Rhetoric (chapter 7) or use a more robust Tool such as Perceptual Mapping (chapter 7), if required.
  • After prioritizing, have the group agree on the most impactful and “most likely” causes. Frequently at this point, leaders instruct the group about the Pareto principle, seeking the 20 percent of causes that generate 80 percent of incidences.7
  • Where the group remains uncertain, appeal to the fuzzy criteria to guide participants, but only let them use the fuzzy criteria when referring to the most important causes. Do not let participants waste time with the least important causes (except in the rare case that 100 percent diligence is required across every cause because of risks to life, health, or another critical value).

NOTE: Also consider applying the Pareto principle (80-20 rule) after you have prioritized solutions, so that you build consensus around the most important actions that should be endorsed.

After-Action Review Tool

WHY?

Use an After-Action Review (AAR) for debriefing what went wrong with a project, program, or initiative. An After-Action Review may also be called an after-action debriefing, a look back, a postmortem, or a hot wash, among other names. In the Agile community, a similar event is called a retrospective. The logic of an AAR supports building a reflection of what caused fixable problems so that we can improve future performance.

An After-Action Review is not intended to critique or grade success or failure. Rather, it identifies weaknesses that need improvement and strengths that might be leveraged and sustained.

PROCEDURE

After-Action Review answers four “learning culture” questions:

  1. Purpose: What was supposed to happen?
  2. Results: What did happen?
  3. Causes: What caused the difference?
  4. Implications: What can we learn from this?

The After-Action Review provides a candid conversation of actual performance results compared to purpose and objectives. Hence, participants contribute their subject matter expertise, input, and perspective. They provide their insight, observation, and questions that help reinforce strengths and identify and correct the deficiencies of the action being reviewed.

Learning cultures highly value collaborative inquiry and reflection. The US Armed Forces use AARs extensively, using a variety of means to collect hard, verifiable data to assess performance. The US Army refers to its evidence-based learnings as “ground truths.”

AARs value openness, candor, and frankness. Participants identify mistakes they made as well as observations of others, without attributing the mistakes to any one or group of people. Few groups open up and provide complete candor, but facilitators should encourage full disclosure. Prohibit any other use of these candid conversations, especially performance reviews and personal evaluations.

Focus on what can be learned, not who can be blamed.

The US Army’s technique uses five basic guidelines that govern its AARs, namely:

  1. Call it like you see it.
  2. Discover the “ground truth.”
  3. No sugarcoating.
  4. No thin or thick skins.
  5. Take thorough notes.

An AAR meeting takes from a partial day to an entire week. The AAR meeting may include 20 to 30 people or more, but not necessarily everyone at once. Hence, participation varies over the course of the meeting.

AFTER-ACTION REVIEW EVENT, MEETING, OR WORKSHOP AGENDA

  • Launch
    • – Use the seven-activity Launch (chapter 5). Emphasize the project objectives and expected impact of the project on the organizational holarchy. Carefully articulate key assumptions or constraints.
  • Success Objectives
    • – Results are compared to the SMART objectives. Items that worked or hampered provide input for conversation later. Be immediately cautious about scope creep. Questions that may be out of bounds at this time include why certain actions were taken, how stakeholders reacted, why adjustments were made (or not), what assumptions developed, and other questions that need to be managed later.
  • Goals and Considerations
    • – Compare the project results to the fuzzy goals and other considerations. Again, be careful with scope creep. Manage other questions later such as why certain actions were taken, how stakeholders reacted, why adjustments occurred (or not), and what assumptions developed.
  • What Worked and What Hampered Work
    • – Initially focus on the hard and inescapable facts of what did happen. Results-focused conversation stimulates talk about assumptions, conditions, evidence, examples, and options that impact future actions.
      • How stakeholders reacted
      • What assumptions developed
      • What worked and what hampered
      • Why certain actions took priority
      • What adjustments worked (or not)
      • Other questions as appropriate
  • Issues and Risks
    • – Assess or build a risk management plan and other follow-up actions (such as Guardian of Change) based on actual results.
  • Review and Wrap
    • – Use the four-activity conclusion

SPECIAL RULES

With more than 20 people, frequently use Breakout Teams (chapter 6). Do not hesitate to partition the meeting so that participants may come and go as required. You may need to loop back, cover material built earlier, and clarify or add to it. The After-Action Review shifts the culture from one in which blame is ascribed to one in which learning is prized yet team members willingly remain accountable.

Conduct AARs consistently after each significant project, program, or initiative. Therefore, do not isolate “failed” or “stressed” projects only. Special rules and guidelines that have proved successful in the past include these:

  • Focus on the objectives first.
  • Encourage participants to raise any potentially critical issues or lessons.
  • Do not judge success or failure of individuals (judge performance, not the person).

For learning organizations, the following points support cultural growth:

  • Some of the most valuable learning derives from the most stressful situations.
  • Train the team to inspect and adapt itself.
  • Transform subjective comments and observations into objective learning by converting adjectives such as “quick” into SMART criteria such as “less than 30 seconds.”
  • Use facilitators who understand the importance of neutrality and do not lecture or preach.

Effective use of AARs supports a mindset in organizations that are never satisfied with the status quo—where candid, honest, and open conversation evidences learning as part of the organizational culture. Learning cultures stress everyone’s roles and responsibility, and such a culture begins with using hard data to analyze actual results.

6. Actions (Solutions)

If you use an unstructured question like “What should we do about this problem?,” the cybersecurity technicians start talking about all sorts of things:

  • “Management needs to hire more people.”
  • “Technicians should be required to use their PTO (paid time off).”
  • “I need additional training on ______” (and so on).

They spend most of their meeting in scope (they are not talking about fütball the entire meeting). But when does the meeting end? Not when the list is exhausted. Rather, the meeting ends when the time runs out. Why? People have another meeting to attend; someone else reserved the meeting room; and so on.

If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. With the unstructured style, even though we captured good stuff, there is no way to know what we missed. The nature of “poor requirements” is that omissions can be more expensive than errors.

NOTE: Although a separate activity, it will not take much time to identify the people, agents, or actors (personas) who will participate in the solution or plan (for example, participants, management, contractors).

PROCEDURE

If you embrace the structured tactic, you know exactly what to do and what four questions you are going to ask for each and every cause (for example, fatigue):

  1. What can cybersecurity personnel do to prevent fatigue? (for example, improve their diets)
  2. What can management do to prevent fatigue? (for example, provide ergonomic furniture)
  3. What can cybersecurity personnel do to cure for fatigue? (for example, get to bed earlier)
  4. What can management do to cure for fatigue? (for example, hire more people)

NOTE: Here you populate a matrix with the personas and timeline. The quickest way to proceed with the “x” dimension (horizontal or longitudinal—usually time runs from left to right) separately covers the before and after phases (such as what can be done to prevent each cause and then separately, what can be done to cure for each cause, repeating for each identified persona).

Which one of these four questions can you afford to skip? None of them, of course. But business is not always this elementary. Many times, there is a third type of persona: contractors. Sometimes there is a third point in time: during. Look at the matrix in table 8.1 and note that you might need to ask nine questions about each cause because you do not know which ones, if any, you can afford to skip.

I know table 8.1 gives a lot of people headaches. Knowing that to be thorough, participants must answer nine questions about each cause, the general reaction is, “Screw it—let’s just have a meeting and discuss it.”

How’s that unstructured style working out for you? Don’t forget that the terms “discussion,” “percussion,” and “concussion” are all related. If you have a headache when you depart a meeting, the reason is that the meeting was not structured and you are not sure what, if anything, was accomplished.

Table 8.1. Solution Stack (also known as Headache)

Timing / Persona

Before Burnout (preventative solutions)

During Burnout (mitigating solutions)

After Burnout (curative solutions)

Management

  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on
  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on
  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on

 

  • Ideate preventions (1, 2, and so on)
  • Ideate mitigations (11, 12, and so on)
  • Ideate cures (21, 22, and so on)

Cybersecurity employee

  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on
  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on
  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on

 

  • Ideate preventions (5, 6, and so on)
  • Ideate mitigations (15, 16, and so on)
  • Ideate cures (25, 26, and so on)

Contractors

  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on
  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on
  • List of causes A, B, C, and so on

 

  • Ideate preventions (7, 8, and so on)
  • Ideate mitigations (17 18, and so on)
  • Ideate mitigations (27 28, and so on)

Innovation Warm-Ups Tool

WHY?

Warm-Ups may be used to set the tone for Brainstorming (chapter 6) or general problem-solving meetings. The Warm-Ups Tool helps groups to stimulate mind-expanding ideas and conversation, make unusual connections, and analyze relationships.

Warm-Ups can be conducted individually or with Breakout Teams (chapter 6); the Tool is very friendly to online meeting settings. Be creative and make up your own Warm-Ups, striving to select themes related to your meeting deliverables or product or project endeavors.

WARM-UPS

Simply give your group some basic commands. Most important, add your own objects (“things”) to modify these questions:

  • Build a process flow diagram for . . .
    • – Washing a dog, mowing the lawn, cutting someone’s hair, and so on
  • Coin a novel word for a . . .
    • – New soft drink, computer wizard, hyperactive customer, and so on
  • Describe a . . .
    • – New home on the moon, dessert with unusual ingredients, and so on
  • Design a new . . .
    • – Exercise machine, toy, breakfast food, food supplement, and so on
  • Draw a map of . . .
    • – Ideal playground, new type of amusement park, and so on
  • Give directions for . . .
    • – Making a peanut butter sandwich, tying a tie, and so on
  • Give new uses for a . . .
    • – Coat hanger, dental floss, carrot, whiteboard eraser, and so on
  • Make up a story that includes a . . .
    • – Space alien, garbage disposal, and watermelon
    • – Sunflower seed, swimming pool, and 10-gallon hat
  • Name as many things as you can that . . .
    • – Come in pairs, include the word “ship,” contain a color in the term (such as “red tape” or “yellow brick road”), and so on
  • Name as many things as you can that are . . .
    • – Soft and white, hard and can float, blue and edible, and so on
  • Name the ways you can . . .
    • – Make a friend, open a jar, thank someone, and so on
  • What would you do to improve . . .
    • – A drinking fountain, eyeglasses, fast food service, traffic congestion, high-rise buildings, and so on

SCAMPER Tool

WHY?

SCAMPER gives you a “hip-pocket” Tool—an unplanned way of developing appropriate questions on an impromptu basis. You may also use SCAMPER to take raw input (unedited lists) and challenge participants to clarify their input further, thus improving input.

PROCEDURE

Select appropriate questions using the mnemonic “SCAMPER” and challenge some of the initial input. Challenges help the group understand the objective nature of what is being described and encourage developing new options.

SCAMPER Checklist:

  • S = SUBSTITUTE: Have a thing or person act or serve in another’s place. Change a component or ingredient within an idea.
  • C = COMBINE: Bring together or unite. Combine components, ideas, or purposes.
  • A = ADAPT: Adjust or suit to a condition or purpose. Look for surrogates or analogies. Look to the past or the future for parallels, riffs, and variations.
  • M = MODIFY: Alter or change in form or quality. Modify frequency, intensity, timing, size, and so on.
    • MAGNIFY: Enlarge or make greater in quality or form. Consider all appropriate dimensions such as frequency, intensity, timing, size, and so on.
    • MINIMIZE: Make smaller, lighter, slower, less frequent. Consider all appropriate dimensions such as frequency, intensity, timing, size, and so on.
  • P = PUT to other uses: Use for purposes other than the one intended. See Solving Creatively for creative sparks and new thinking.
  • E = ELIMINATE: Remove, omit, or get rid of a quality, part, or whole. Costs? Effort? Time? Waste?
  • R = REARRANGE: Change order or create new layout or scheme. See chapter 7 for separate Tools on purpose, options, and criteria.

7. Testing (Solution Quality)

Once we have a set of candidate solutions (what or Actions), we should test them for efficacy. To what extent do proposed solutions support the intended purpose (built in Agenda Step 2)? If clear objectives were built or are available, conduct Alignment (chapter 6). More important, will performing all these solutions get us from where we are to where we need to be?

If not, or if uncertain, we need to facilitate identification of the reason, immediately followed by identifying what other solutions should be considered. If thorough and acceptable, we can take the solutions and make assignments of Roles and Responsibilities (chapter 6) or, for now, simply wrap up.

Because no one can assuredly predict future states, prudent organizations rely on Scenario Planning to allow the possibility of sunny skies, stormy skies, or cloudy skies. Building scenarios and ranges begins in the next section.

Scenarios and Ranges Tool

WHY?

Probabilities consist of shared assumptions, beliefs, and outlooks about some future state or condition. Forward-looking deliverables such as five-year plans and shaping curves rely exclusively on the concept of probabilities, since no future state is certain.

How can a meeting facilitator help resolve arguments around conflicting probabilities, particularly when evidence supports multiple outcomes? The answer is by creating ranges and not relying on fixed numbers.

SCENARIO PLANNING RANGES

Strive to avoid building one set of “answers.” Rather, build multiple answers—such as five answers. Facilitate mutual understanding around the following five scenario types.

Sunny Skies

Dare your participants to think positive. Ask them to relieve themselves from concerns about risks and other exogenous factors. Strive to build and agree on a “best likely” scenario, akin to sunny skies and clear sailing. Don’t allow impediments or other negative throttles. While unlikely, the sunny skies scenario provides one Bookend Rhetoric (chapter 7) number or set of projections that would be unlikely to be exceeded within the period specified.

Stormy Skies

Take your participants in the opposite direction. Allow for every conceivable catastrophe or injurious situation. Try to fall short of “bankruptcy” or “going out of business,” but relent if your participants make an urgent claim that complete “death” is one outcome.

Partly Sunny Skies

Having built the two prior scenarios, take a closer look at the sunny skies scenario and predict some of the most likely occurrences. Strive to make this view and set of projections positive, but not extreme. If necessary, use PowerBalls (chapter 7) to rank the importance of assumptions, and toggle or adjust only the most important outcomes, leaving the others untouched.

Partly Cloudy Skies

With Bookend Rhetoric, move again in the opposite direction by taking a closer look at the stormy skies scenario and toggle some of the least likely occurrences. Here you want to facilitate their development of a set of negative but not extreme projections. Have participants study past performance and downturns for reliable percentages. Again, if necessary, use PowerBalls to rank the impact of assumptions, and toggle only the most impactful outcomes, leaving the others untouched.

Probable Forecast

Take the four scenarios and projections to drive consensus around the most likely range. Force participants to defend their arguments with evidence, facts, and real-life examples. Have participants agree or disagree with the prioritized lists of assumptions, and revisit the prioritization if necessary. Along the way, begin to listen and note any projections being suggested as “most likely” because they can help establish an agreeable midpoint for final projections and ranges.

GOING FURTHER

Further analysis can take the range and establish targets and thresholds for on-target performance (green lights), cautionary performance (yellow lights), and intervention performance (red lights). Avoid an unstructured discussion. Carefully and extensively document and define assumptions. Remember to use Definitions (chapter 6), since you may discover participants in violent agreement with one another!

NOTE: The value of a meeting facilitator is rarely greater than when serving as a referee for future conditions that cannot be proven, even using evidence-based support.

8. Review and Wrap (Conclusion) Agenda Step

Follow the four-activity sequence for the Review and Wrap explained in chapter 5. None of the four activities should ever be skipped entirely, so expand and contract based on your situation and constraints.

ACTIVITIES

  1. Review: Do not relive the meeting; simply review the outputs, decisions, assignments, and so on. Focus on the results and deliverable of each Agenda Step and not on how you got there. Participants do not need a transcript of the meeting; they need to be reminded about the takeaways and to be offered the opportunity to ask for additional information or clarification before the meeting ends.
  2. Open issues and follow-up: There are various methods and treatments of open items and formal assignments, such as roles and responsibilities. Once post-meeting assignments are clear, the meeting is nearly complete.
  3. Guardian of Change: Invest a few minutes to get the group to agree on what they are going to tell others when asked about “What happened in that meeting?” Use a T-Chart and build separate messages for superiors and peers (or other stakeholders).
  4. Assessment: Get feedback on how you did. Set up or mark a white-board by the exit door and create two columns, typically Plus and Delta (the Greek letter 6, which stands for “change”). Have participants write down, on a small Post-it note, at least one thing they liked about the meeting [+] and one thing they would change [6]. Ask participants to mount each note in its respective column when departing the room.

QUALITY CONTROL

Effective leaders will not disband their meetings until participants have been offered a final opportunity to comment or question, actions have been assigned, messaging has been agreed to, and feedback for continuous improvement has been solicited.

Quick Summary on Problem Solving

Problem-solving meetings are a hybrid of planning meetings and decision-making meetings; we typically combine parts of each to build a robust solution. Taking the time to be creative or to turn creative ideas into something innovative, something measurable, distinguishes problem-solving sessions.

To that end:

  • Always embrace Perspectives (chapter 8), from every stakeholder’s point of view.
  • Explore unusual options because the best solutions often do not walk into the session, they are created during the meeting. Alex Osborn’s keen appreciation for Brainstorming (chapter 6) was elevated because his participants leveraged one another’s ideas to create solutions that were not apparent at the start of the meeting.
  • Once you have a prioritized list of Causes, there are numerous paths you may take to develop Solutions, ranging from quick Breakout Team (chapter 6) sessions to extensive Root Cause Analysis (chapter 8). Have both a plan and a back-up plan depending on how well or quickly your meeting progresses.
  • Remember that “poor requirements” usually indicate that something was missed or overlooked, not that the requirements gathered were incorrect. Therefore, be painstaking with detailed questions.
  • You will find yourself in a position (eventually) where you don’t have all the stakeholders in the meeting who need to be part of the solution. Anticipate that likelihood before your meeting and determine in advance how you are going to deal with that situation. Postpone? Call the stakeholders in? Or do something else?
  • When building Solutions, remember the logic of Scenario Planning (chapter 8) and build ranges of numbers when projecting into the future, not one fixed number. Then prepare to review the work and toggle the ranges so that in some scenarios you hit the “most likely” end of the range, in others you hit the “least likely” end of the range, and so on.
  • Allow time for rigorous Testing: to what extent will these Solutions (or this plan) get us from where we are to where we need to be?

1 J. W. Getzels, “Problem Finding and the Inventiveness of Solutions” (1975).

2 For other ideas and more detail, see The Thinker’s Toolkit: 14 Powerful Techniques for Problem Solving (1998) by former CIA agent Morgan D. Jones.

3 Terms that are grayed out are for your eyes only and not to be shown on your Basic Agenda.

4 While this Problem-Solving Approach appeals to the Purpose expression to ascertain the value of proposed actions, you may add an additional Agenda Step to develop a set of criteria (or constraints) that optimal actions should support.

5 On a practical note, when the topic is “politically sensitive,” Change Management might be an additional Agenda Step—to develop a plan to reduce resistance to the proposed actions (solution).

6 Edward de Bono, “Six Thinking Hats,” n.d., https://www.debonogroup.com/services/core-programs/six-thinking-hats/.

7 The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule) suggests that in most situations, 80% of outputs or effects are derived from 20% of inputs or causes.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
54.92.135.47