The way in which you approach a problem determines the way in which you solve it.
One of the most important lessons you will ever learn, is how to make your own rules. In order to overcome obstacles and transform situations, others and yourself, you have to go beyond what you are told to do in order to get to the heart of the problem.
In any situation where there are rivals, better outcomes are attained either through out-competing, or out-cooperating. In more instances than we might care to admit, increasing cooperation leads to a far better outcome than increasing our competitiveness. We’re all taught to compete, try hard, do our best, and we will come out winners. No one bothers to ask, however, why are we playing the game in the first place? In other words, sometimes the best way to win the game is to change it.
A Game of Inches
Recently, I was required to take part in a game of horse shoes as part of a class exercise. The Horse shoe game was supposed to teach us about variation. We were divided into teams of 3 people each, and each team took turns pitching horseshoes. We had to pitch the shoes, measure how far each one fell from the pin, and then come up with some simple ideas on how to change man, machine, material, method or environment. Once we had our improvement in mind, we needed to implement the change and then pitch & measure again to see if our idea worked. Seems simple enough, right?
Ever willing to test the boundaries, however, I asked what limits we could push on in order bring about perfection (in other words, zero variation). I received a lot of blank stares. I didn’t see the problem as a need for “better training” or to have the “best one do all the throws” or “just slide the shoes instead of throwing them.” What I saw was a non-cooperative game. Since neither team was allowed to work with the other to achieve a collectively better outcome, nor were we allowed to cooperate within our own teams since we were all trying to get the best individual score, there was nothing in place to result in zero variation. All we were trying to do, therefore, was minimize the poor outcomes, with varying degrees of success.
But what if we step back a little bit and look at the entire situation? The whole exercise was designed to take identical horseshoes, throw them back and forth, and hope that we could somehow find some way to make our shoes get closer to the pin. Now picture this: Each team is standing right next to a pin, holding a horse shoe that is identical to every other horseshoe, and then throwing it 20 feet, hoping it lands close to the pin. If the objective is to bring variation to zero, however, we have to ask, “Why are we throwing these horseshoes?” If each team simply agrees to put their horseshoes down onto the pin that is right next to their feet, they will all have perfect horseshoe placement. Very little energy expended for a perfect outcome.
Of course, we were told we couldn’t do that, which is a shame. Rather than promoting innovation, it was decided that adherence to the rules would be enforced. So we then attempted to work with the other team in another way. We asked them to catch our horse shoes and put them down where they belong. We would do the same, and variation will still be 0, although more effort will have been expended. Again, we were told that wasn’t part of the exercise.
In a business school environment, squelching innovation is a shame. Isn’t it better to teach that there are 2 paths: increasing competition, or increase cooperation. If competing with an apparent rival shows no significant advantage to either of you, finding ways to use each other’s strengths results in a far better outcome for both.
Simply because the envisioned solution is outside of what the outcome is supposed to be isn’t a reason to squelch innovation. In fact, finding solutions outside of preconceived notions is pretty much the result of critical thinking and may very well be the definition of innovation .
The Chips were Down
Another class exercise that didn’t go as planned. A potato chip manufacturer sees nearly 1/3 of its harvested potatoes going to waste for several reasons: too small, bruised, discolored, etc. We were asked to plot th frequency and percentage on a Pareto chart, brainstorm potential causes and then brainstorm recommendations for dealing with the problem. The expectation was that we would tackle the biggest three issues, which produced around 70% of the problems. Our team assumed the majority of defects were due to man-made problems with storage, handling and transportation. We decided to deal with these issues, even though they were portrayed as having a smaller individual frequency on our Pareto chart, since, when taken together, the man-made problems accounted for 85% of all defects. (The largest problem, that the potatoes were too small, we attributed to soil conditions and weather).
Using a little bit of Lean manufacturing theory, we determined that the company should begin investigating processing the potatoes in-line on mobile platforms were potatoes could be picked, peeled, washed, sliced, fried and bagged right there in the field. If possible, this would eliminate the storage, handling and transportation errors that were resulting in rot, discoloration, bruising, etc.
The classroom burst forth in an uproar. We heard that we weren’t doing the exercise correctly, that we interpreted the exercise incorrectly and needed to revise our assumptions, and on. When our response went beyond the parameters of the exercise, the instructor sought to change the rules in order to reinforce the expected outcome. Several students interrupted us before we could get our thoughts out because we weren’t sticking to the case as it was laid out with its predetermined “right” and “wrong” answers.
Once again, critical thinking, problem solving, and allowing creativity to happen without censoring ideas went right out the window. What needed to be demonstrated and taught was that ideas are the most valuable currency we have, and they need to be cultivated. Much like potatoes.
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words
Fresh out of a course on Lean manufacturing methods, I was transferring what I had learned to a group of co-workers I wanted to demonstrate the lack of need for developing long, rigid sets of work instructions (rules) and policies (more rules) in order to assure an optimal outcome. I told them to place 16 red, 12 blue and 8 yellow poker ships (36 in total) on a piece of paper. It could be as complex or simple as they liked, as long as they used all the chips. They then had to develop instructions such that anyone, including someone who had never seen the finished product before, could reproduce their layout, ideally with 0 defects.
The group broke up into 2 teams, and I left the room, leaving them to work on their own for 15 minutes. At the end of 15 minutes, they were frantically trying to get all their ideas down in time, and asked for another 5 minutes. I told them to do what they felt needed to get done, and I’d come back in 5 minutes to check. The other group sat, patiently, not even bothering to get up and walk around since they had 5 minutes to do nothing. They just sat there.
Once both teams were done, I had them read their instructions to each other, and offer comments. I then pointed out that 2 teams took 30 minutes to form a committee, develop policies, revise them, share them for comments that would then need to be incorporated and revised again, then sent for approvals. They all nodded that this is the way it should be done to make sure everyone was “on the same page.”
I asked them how they would handle a request to have the chips laid out differently. After all, there are many possible combinations and not everyone likes the same thing. They offered that either they’d need to develop instructions for every case or, what was more likely, was that they should only offer a limited set since developing instructions for all the possible arrangements was simply too cumbersome.
Nonsense. You just have to learn to approach the problem differently.
I declared that, rather than 10 people spending 300 minutes to solve the problem, 1 person could do it in less than 5, and their instructions would result in less confusion, less stress, and a very high probability of a perfect outcome.
They looked at me like I was crazy. I told them, all they needed to do, was to stop trying to write down the rules and draw a picture. So, I took out 4 markers (black, blue, red and yellow) and made this chart:
Policies and elaborate rules that require great concentration to digest don’t necessarily solve problems. You can spend tremendous amounts of effort developing complex rule sets and instructions, and expend even greater deals of energy enforcing them, or you can understand how and why people work, and arrange your solutions around what can actually be accomplished simply, easily, and with the least amount of effort – and with the highest degree of quality.
You‘ll never get there, however, until you learn to break the rules.
About the author David M. Kasprzak
I am a seasoned project and management analyst with over 14 years of experience as a trusted advisor to all levels on planning, measuring and analyzing activities. From small-scale internal projects to multi-year development efforts supporting enterprise-wide initiatives at the C-level, I “get geeky” seeing great management practices yield great outcomes. I am a fierce & vocal advocate for learning, collaborative approaches to work and pursuing Operational Excellence through challenging the status quo and fostering management innovation
Pingback: Tweets that mention The Rules are the Problem « My Flexible Pencil -- Topsy.com