How did this happen? All your planning schedules seemed up-to-date, and there were no indications of delays. Now each of the departments is blaming the others: “If only they had given me x on time…” “If only the packaging group had let me know when they first knew they were falling behind…” Now you will have to hassle the different departments to get the parts out as quickly as possible, like you did with the last program. But you thought the problem had been solved—the company made it clear that late parts and missed target dates would not be tolerated. In fact, severe penalties were out-lined. What happened?

The Problem-Solving Treadmill

The above scenario is typical for many people caught on a problem-solving treadmill. The “Fixes that Fail” archetype provides a starting point to help you get off the treadmill by identifying “quick fixes” that may be doing more harm than good (see “Fixes that Fail: Oiling the Squeaky Wheel — Again and Again…” November 1990). The central theme of this archetype is that almost any decision carries long-term and short-term consequences, and the two are often diametrically opposed.

In the case of the product launch, the fix that was meant to keep everyone on target actually made things worse. Penalizing those who missed deadlines created a dynamic where no one dared reveal that they were running late. If no one was “discovered” before a critical deadline (like prototype test), then everyone would be discovered at the same time, and no one person or team could be singled out. After that crisis was addressed, schedules would be stressed even more and penalties for failure would be increased…again. The result: programs are continually run with inaccurate information, creating rework and further hurting the schedule.

Getting off the problem-solving treadmill starts with becoming aware of how one is operating in such a structure. What follows is a seven-step process for mapping out the systemic consequences of quick fixes and for identifying high leverage actions.

1. Start with the Problem Symptom (and only the symptom)

Oftentimes we confuse “problem solutions” with problem symptoms. We are so used to responding to certain types of problems that we begin to see the lack of our solutions as being the problem. Problem solution statements like “The problem is….we need a bigger sales force,” or “The problem is…we don’t have the latest order processing system,” can lead you right back on the problem-solving treadmill.

It is important to spend some time up-front defining the problem symptom. This will force you to understand the problem as separate from any actions that you have taken, are taking, or plan on taking. Try turning problem solution statements such as “lack of sales training” into problem symptom phrases like “falling sales volume.”

2. Map Current Interventions

After you have clarified the problem, you can map out various past “solutions,” as well as current and planned actions. This is where you may include your favorite solutions such as sales training, marketing promotions, advertising campaigns, etc. In each case you want to draw out how the interventions will rectify the problem. For example, marketing promotions make it more attractive to buy now vs. later, which leads to higher sales (loop B1 in “Fixes for Falling Sales” diagram).

By following the discipline of clearly articulating how your actions affect the problem, you create an explicit map of your causal assumptions. The output of this mapping process can be used to show others how you understand the problem, and invite them to add to or modify the diagram from their point of view.

3. Map Unintended Consequences

One action can produce multiple consequences. People are usually good at recognizing the intended results, but not as good at identifying the unintended consequences. Use the causal diagram to map out potential side-effects of any actions you have taken to rectify the problem.

For example, one danger of repeatedly using marketing promotions to boost sales volume is that the products become less attractive when they are not accompanied by promotions. Over a period of time, product image erodes and sales decline. This exacerbates the sales volume problem, which then justifies the use of more marketing promotions (R2). This tendency of the system to reinforce the need to take the same actions again and again is at the heart of “Fixes that Fail.”

4. Identify Loops that Create Problem Symptoms

Treating symptoms can become a full-time job, since each set of fixes creates new symptoms that beg to be “solved.” To stop the treadmill, however, we must identify what is causing the problem in the first place. This search for the fundamental cause may lead to very different questions. Instead of looking for ways to solve a “falling sales problem,” for example, we should try to understand what factors directly affect sales (aside from the fixes we have already proposed).

Some root causes may include quality of customer service, number of new products, manufacturing lead times, or product quality. As you explore the root causes of falling sales volume, for example, you may discover that the number of new products has been declining in recent months. The next question to ask is: “How is the problem symptom connected to the number of new products (or any of the other potential root causes)?” You may find that in response to revenue pressure in the past, investments in new products were curtailed. The effects of that decision are now being seen in the reduced number of new products, which further aggravates the falling sales volume (R3 in “Shifting Emphasis to Marketing Promotions”).

5. Find Connections between Both Sets of Loops

Oftentimes, “fixes” and fundamental causes are linked together in ways that further reinforce the continued use of the fixes. Identifying the links can highlight the many ways fixes can get entrenched in a company’s routine.

Shifting Emphasis to Marketing Promotions

As product attractiveness relies more on promotions, the emphasis on promotions increases. This leads to more promotions (R4) and lower investments in new product development (R5), which will further exacerbate the falling sales volume (R3).

In our marketing example, as the product attractiveness depends more on promotions, emphasis on promotions will increase, leading to more promotions (R4). Investments in new product development, on the other hand, will be reduced as the company shifts its attention to marketing (RS). The resulting diagram looks similar to a “Shifting the Burden” archetype, as the company grows more dependent on marketing promotions to push sales. (A “Fixes that Fail” structure usually carries the seeds of a “Shifting the Burden”).

6. Identify High Leverage Interventions

Identifying high-leverage interventions usually means cutting or adding links in the causal maps. These actions represent structural interventions that will alter the policies that affect how people make decisions and take action.

Cutting the links from “revenue pressure” and “emphasis on marketing promotions” to “investments in new product development,” for example, decouples investment decisions from other responses to falling sales volume. On the other hand, adding a link between “erosion of product image” and “investments in new product development” can channel important market information that can be used to enhance the product’s appeal.

7. Map Potential Side Effects

For every contemplated intervention, try to identify side-effects that may be undesirable (using steps 3-4 above). By mapping them in advance, you can better prepare to respond or perhaps design around them altogether.

Summary

The preceding seven steps are meant as guidelines (not a rigid set of rules) for systematically mapping out the multiple consequences of actions. The resulting diagrams can help clarify the critical issues and provide a common, shared understanding of the problem in order to design more effective and long-lasting solutions.

The post Using “Fixes That Fail” to Get Off the Problem-Solving Treadmill appeared first on The Systems Thinker.

Despite many efforts, walls persist in our organizations as well — often in exaggerated proportions. The logic seems to be “if a waist-high wall is good, a ten-foot one is even better, and if there are any chinks in the wall we should reinforce them with steel beams.” The end result; organizational gridlock. Each “neighbor” is behind his or her wall, laying more brick and mortar until both are locked away in his or her own functional chimney. An “us versus them” mentality quickly develops and begins to govern every interaction. Tremendous organizational energy is wasted fighting our way through the obstructions. And yet, although no one seems to like the result, gridlock still persists.

Functional Walls

Gridlock may even increase as the couplings between different parts of an organization grow tighter and tighter. Imagine a mesh of beads woven together like a fish net. You can pick up one of the beads without disturbing any of the other beads until the slack is gone. Then every movement of that bead affects the four other beads directly connected to it. If you pull further and eliminate the slack between the next level of beads, your movement now affects twelve beads, and so on.

The current corporate trend toward delayering is analogous to pulling on the beads to continually eliminate the slack in the system. As slack is removed, the interdependencies grow in importance. Gridlock results when each bead continues to move as if it were independent of everyone else — each pulling in a different direction, keeping everyone at a standstill. Therefore, as the coupling tightens, our need for a systemic understanding of the consequences of our actions increases. Before we can work effectively to break through the gridlock, however, we need to first be able so see the “systemness” of our organization.

Breaking through Gridlock

Oftentimes, gridlock can be caused by interlocking “Shifting the Burden” structures. In “Shifting the Burden,” a problem is “solved” by applying a symptomatic solution that diverts attention away from more fundamental solutions (see “Shifting the Burden: The ‘Helen Keller’ Loops,” September 1990). When the symptomatic solution creates another problem, prompting further symptomatic solutions, the double “Shifting the Burden” pattern that results can spawn a whole maze of interlocking problems. In the process, the organization’s ability to fundamentally resolve the problem atrophies.

The “Shifting the Burden” archetype provides a starting point for breaking gridlock by identifying chains of problem symptoms and solutions that form or maintain walls between functions, departments, or divisions. In a car product development program, for example, gridlock can occur when each of the component or subsystem teams want to optimize their own area without considering the effect on others.

Below is a seven-step process for identifying the “Shifting the Burden” structures that can become interlocked and produce gridlock. By mapping out these structures, you can build a shared understanding about the issue and identify leverage points for action.

1. Identify the Original Problem

Symptom When identifying a problem symptom, try not to focus just on a single event. Instead, try looking back over a period of time and identifying a class of symptoms that have been recurring. For example, in the car product development setting, problem symptoms might be missing specifications, wrong part numbers, and incompatible parts — all of which may fall under a more general heading of “coordination problems.”

2. Map All fixes’

Next, try to map out all the fixes that have been used to tackle the identified problem. The objective is to identify a set of balancing loops that appear to be keeping the problems under control. For example, in the car product development effort, a Noise, Vibration, and Harshness (NVH) team encounters a noise problem and fixes it by adding reinforcements to the car, which solves the original problem (loop BI in “Inter-locked Quick Fixes” diagram).

3. Identify Impart on Others

Solutions aren’t implemented in isolation, however. Actions taken by one group almost always affect others in the organization. The persistence of gridlock suggests the presence of a reinforcing process that is locking the different players into a patterned response.

In our example, NVH’s fix for the noise problem increases the car’s weight and presents a problem for the chassis team. Chassis, in turn, “fixes” their problem by increasing the tire pressure (B2), which worsens the harshness and leads to another NVH problem. Another round of NVH quick fixes lead to another round of chassis quick fixes in a vicious reinforcing spiral (RI ).

4. Identify Fundamental Solutions

Having identified the other player(s) who are affected by your fixes, you need to identify a solution that will more fundamentally address the problem(s) by looking at the situation from both perspectives and finding a systemic solution.

A fundamental solution for NVH and Chassis might he to improve the quality and frequency of communication between the two groups so potential problems can be highlighted early and tackled together (B4 and 85 in “Organizational Gridlock” diagram).

5. Map Side Effects of Quick Fixes

Remember, in a “Shifting the Burden” structure there are usually side effects of the quick fixes that steadily undermine the usability of the fundamental solution, leading to a reinforcing spiral of dependency. In our product development example, the fixes may lead each team to focus more and more on meeting their own timing targets, which leads them to invest even less in cross-team communication (R6 and R7).

Organizational Gridlock

Quick fixes applied by each team create an interaction effect that leads to an increasing unwillingness to communicate with the each other. The “US versus them’ mentality appears and then becomes entrenched through these reinforcing loops (RR and R9).

6. Find Interconnections to Fundamental Loops

Side effects can lead to myopia, but they usually are not enough to create organizational gridlock. Finding links between the interaction effects and the fundamental solution (see ‘Organizational Gridlock” diagram) can identify some reasons why functional walls grow thicker and higher over time. In our example, the interaction effects (e.g., reinforcements leading to an added weight problem for chassis) lead to an increasing unwillingness to communicate with the other team. The “us versus them” mentality appears and then becomes entrenched through these reinforcing loops (R8 and R9).

7. Identify Nigh Leverage Actions

When you are in the middle of gridlock, it is difficult to see exactly where you are or how to get out. But, if you are able to get a bird’s-eye view, you can see the larger grid. For this reason, the process of mapping out a gridlocked situation can be a high-leverage action. It can stop the finger-pointing and blaming that often occurs in gridlock and provide a starting point for communicating across the walls.

Summary

“Shifting the Burden” structures are so ubiquitous that they have become part of our accepted landscape. Following the steps outlined above can help us become more aware of the structures that keep us building and mending walls that have long outlived their usefulness. Mapping out potential problems and interactions before they happen can prevent gridlock from occurring. As Frost suggests, “Before I built a wall I’d ask to know/What I was walling in or walling out,/And to whom I was like to give offense.”

The post Using “Shifting the Burden” to Break Organizational Gridlock appeared first on The Systems Thinker.