Systematic Problem Solving

The other key procedure team members need to agree on is how they will solve problems. Systematic problem solving enables a team to make wise decisions, raising it far above the level of "sandlot" teams that address problems in a free-form manner. This is the mode issue that Dr. Yates identified earlier in the section on decision making. How does your team go about problem solving? Does your team seem to jump quickly to solutions without spending the time to understand the problem first? Do team members act as if their job were merely to identify problems and expect management to solve the issues associated with them? These tendencies turn meetings into complaint or demand sessions, and people spend a lot of time figuring out whom to blame rather than what should be done about the matter.

A key ground rule that makes a significant difference is to allow teams to work only on problems within their sphere of influence. Sometimes in management's effort to show that they support the team concept, they oversell the opportunity. Yes, you probably want to make sure you let people know that their ideas are respected by the organization. However, you don't want to encourage a system where a team in one part of your facility spends its time deciding how others should do their business. You want your teams working on the subjects of their own expertise ”their own business. The team charter needs to be clear on which issues are within the domain of consideration for the team and which are out of bounds. The charter should also clarify which procedures are to be used in problem solving and who gets the final say as to whether the solutions identified are to be implemented.

EXERCISE 18

Consensus Decision Making: The Significant Inventions Exercise

Make copies of this exercise so that each member can participate individually.

Directions: Rank the fifteen significant inventions listed below by date (1 = oldest; 15 = newest) individually without any consultation with teammates and record your answers in column 1. After everyone has completed this task, work as a team to make a consensus decision regarding the rank assigned to each item. Record your team's answers in column 2. Finally, turn to page 140 to find out how the experts ranked these items; transfer their answers to column 3.

INVENTION
Rank from 1 to 15 (1 = Oldest; 15 = Newest)	1. Your Individual Ranking	2. Your Team's Ranking	3. Experts' Ranking	4. Difference Between Cols. 1 & 3	5. Difference Between Cols. 2 & 3
A. Word processor
B. Jet aircraft
C. Soft bifocal contact lenses
D. Sputnik satellite
E. Xerographic copier
F. Robotics
G. Rocket
H. Hard bifocal lenses
I. Frozen food
J. Laser
K. Video home system (VHS)
L. Personal Walkman
M. Bar code system
N. Dental plate
O. Microcomputer

Experts' Ranking of Significant Inventions

Ranking from Oldest to Newest	Date	Inventor/Country of Origin
1. Rocket	1100	China
2. Hard bifocal lenses	1784	Benjamin Franklin
3. Dental plate	1817	Anthony A. Plankston
4. Frozen food	1923	Clarence Birdseye
5. Jet aircraft	1939	Hans von Ohain
6. Xerographic copier	1950	Halvid Co. (USA)
7. Sputnik satellite	1957	USSR
8. Laser	1958	Charles A. Townes
9. Robotics	1962	Rand Corporation (USA)
10. Word processor	1965	IBM (USA)
11. Bar code system	1970	Monach Marking/Plessey Telecom
12. Microcomputer	1973	Trong Truong
13. Video home system (VHS)	1975	Matsushita/ JVC (Japan)
14. Personal Walkman	1979	Sony (Japan)
15. Soft bifocal contact lenses	1985	Softsite Lens Lab (USA)
Source: Scanlon Leadership Network. Used with permission.

 

Scoring the Exercise

The sum of the absolute differences between columns 1 and 3 identifies your individual accuracy score. The sum of the absolute differences between columns 2 and 3 identifies your team accuracy score. The sum of members' individual accuracy scores divided by the number of team members represents the average individual accuracy score on your team.

The lower the score, the more accurate it is. In over 90 percent of cases, the team accuracy score will be better (i.e., lower) than the average individual accuracy score on the team. This proves that team decisions are better than the average individual's decision.

Did any individual have a better (i.e., lower) accuracy score than the team's accuracy score? If not, your team achieved synergy. If so, discuss why that person was not able to influence the team's efforts to rank these items more accurately.

 

There are many models of systematic problem solving that your teams could use, but be sure the approach is not so detailed that they cannot commit it to memory. If team members can't remember the steps involved, they probably won't be using it on a regular basis. In Tools for Team Excellence, I introduced the "4-A" method of problem solving. Since then, hundreds of teams have adopted this approach and have found it simple yet useful and systematic. However, we have found that it helps to add two follow-up steps. Table 13 presents the "4-A Plus 2" model for systematic problem solving.