How to find out the root of the problem [from the net]

The real difficulty for managers is not to solve problems, but to find out where the problems are. They have always been activists, and it is easy to start solving problems before they really understand them. However, unique solutions often come from redefining the problem itself. This paper provides a new method consisting of seven methods, which can help you reconstruct the problem successfully and find innovative solutions.

Imagine the following scenario: you own an office building, and the owner complains to you that the elevator is old and slow, and it needs a long wait. Several owners even threatened to break the contract if the elevator was not repaired.

Faced with this problem, most people will quickly give some answers: replace the elevator, install a more powerful motor, and even upgrade the algorithm for running the elevator. These suggestions all belong to my definition of "solution space", which presupposes that the problem is in the same place. In this example, the default problem is that the elevator is slow, as shown in the figure below.

However, when this problem was submitted to the property, they gave a more convenient suggestion: put a mirror next to the elevator. This method has been proved to be effective in reducing complaints about elevators, because when people are attracted to themselves, it is easy to forget the passage of time.

The method of using the mirror is very striking, because in fact it does not solve the preset problem: it does not make the elevator run faster, but provides a new angle to understand the problem.

It is worth mentioning that the initial analysis of this problem is not necessarily wrong, and it may be feasible to install a new elevator. However, the purpose of refactoring is not to find the "real" problem, but to see if there are any problems that are easier to solve. In fact, the idea that there is only one reason itself may be misleading. There is often more than one reason for the problem, and there are many solutions. For example, this elevator problem can be explained as a demand peak problem-there are too many people who need to take the elevator at the same time, which can be solved by diversifying the demand, such as staggering people's lunch time.

Seven steps to reproduce the problem

Reconstruction is easiest for people to understand through a fast iterative process. You can imagine it as a cognitive rapid prototyping process.

Here are seven specific steps:

1. Ensure the rationalization of reconstruction.

If you are the only person in the room who knows the refactoring method, it is even more difficult to implement it. Because others are eager to find the answer, you may feel that you insist on grasping the problem and reduce efficiency. If the power in the team is unbalanced, such as in front of customers or more senior colleagues, they will stop you before you speak. If employees are used to getting answers directly from leaders instead of questions, it is difficult to implement the reconstruction law even if top managers have high power.

So the first thing you have to do is to rationalize the reconstruction methods in the team and create a dialogue space where the methods can be realized. You can share the elevator example with the team, and use this example to quickly show that the reconstruction problem is particularly effective-it can fully explain how it is different from the simple diagnosis problem, and the possible results are much better.

Involve outsiders in the discussion

This is one of the most effective reconstruction methods. It is very important to look at the problem from an outsider's point of view for reconstructing the problem quickly and properly. The following points can ensure the effective implementation of this method:

Look for "Boundary Extender". As confirmed by Michael Tushman and others, the most useful advice often comes from people who know your world but don't fully integrate into it.

Choose someone who can speak freely. This relatively independent state, called "psychological security" by Amy C. Edmondson of Harvard University, has been proved to promote team performance. You can consider choosing employees whose career development will not be affected by the problem team, or employees who have always dared to tell the truth to the management.

Expect advice, not answers. By definition, outsiders are not experts and rarely really solve problems. This is not their duty. Their task is to inspire those who are responsible for the problem to rethink. Therefore, when outsiders intervene, they must explicitly ask to question the thinking process of the group, and encourage the person responsible for the problem to listen to the suggestions put forward by outsiders instead of seeking answers from him.

3. Let everyone interpret the problem in writing.

Usually, when people end a meeting, they think they have reached an oral understanding of the problem, but after a few weeks or months, they find that they still have different opinions on the problem. Moreover, the successful problem reconstruction scheme is likely to be hidden in these dissidents.

For example, the management team may agree that the company's problem is lack of innovation, but if you ask each member to describe this problem in one or two sentences, you can quickly find out the differences in their analysis. Some people will say, "our employees have no motivation to innovate" or "they don't understand how urgent the situation is." Others will say, "customers don't want to pay for innovation" or "we don't reward innovation." Please pay attention to their wording, because even unimportant choice of words can bring a new perspective to the problem.

Before the discussion, we should collect your own interpretations of the problem. If possible, participants can be asked to send an email stating that they must write sentences, but listing a few points is too brief; Then you can list all the collected questions on the whiteboard for everyone to see and give feedback at the meeting. It should be noted that please do not sign your name to ensure that everyone's judgment on interpretation will not be affected by the identity or status of the proposer.

4. Reflect on the neglected things.

When faced with problem description, people tend to pay attention to details such as "what was said" and tend to ignore "what was not said". In order to correct this deviation, I suggest that you must ask clearly what you have overlooked or missed.

5. Determine the type of problem.

Changing people's perspective can often bring about great changes. One way to stimulate this change is to make everyone think clearly about what problems the team is facing: motivation, expectation, attitude or other problems.

By emphasizing the way the team thinks about the problem (sometimes called "metacognition" or "thinking about how to think"), you can reconstruct the problem, even if no other options were thought of at that time. If you can collect different written explanations of the problem in advance, you can also use this method to classify the explanations.

6. Analyze positive exceptions

In order to find other ways to construct problems, you can pay more attention to those situations that have no problems, and then ask yourself how these special cases are different. By analyzing these positive special cases (sometimes called "bright spots"), we can often find potential factors that have not been considered before.

Finding positive exceptions can also ease the tension in the discussion. Especially in crowded public places, analyzing a series of failures can easily cause antagonistic feelings and make people wary. However, if you ask team members to analyze positive results, it will make it easier for them to check their behavior.

7. Weigh the goals of all interested parties.

Roger Fisher, William L. Yuri and Bruce Patton shared the story of Mary ParkerFollett, an early management thinker, about opening or closing windows in his classic book Getting To Yes. Two people hope to achieve different goals: one needs fresh air and the other is afraid of the wind. Only by making these potential targets public through a third party can the problem be solved-opening a window in another room.

This story illustrates another way to reconstruct the problem-clearly pay attention to the goals of all parties involved, clarify first and then question. Reconstruction is powerful, but it takes time and practice to control it. An executive from the national defense field once said to me: "The reconstruction of the problem is much more difficult than I thought, but the effect is amazing." As you practice refactoring more and more, and promote the team to build trust in the process, you should also be prepared to meet the confusion and confusion that may occasionally occur.

With more and more discussions about enterprise restructuring, you may have the impulse to draw up a problem diagnosis list. In this regard, I would like to solemnly remind you not to do so easily. The problem diagnosis sheet will hinder real thinking and run counter to the goal of participating in reconstruction. Neil gaiman also reminded us in Sandman that "tools may be the most subtle trap".

Finally, the reconstruction is carried out in combination with the actual test. It is not enough just to think or practice. We must combine the two to get better results.