Apparently, the world is addicted to solving the wrong problem. And when we aren’t solving the wrong problem, we are seriously overspending on overly-complex, under-performing solutions. At least according to Rory Sutherland in this compelling TED video (below, keep reading).
I’m familiar with both of these issues. Let me set up the video for you, then watch it below…
What if we’re solving the wrong problems?
Participants in the Leadership Gift program for leaders discover how most of our life we have been trying to deal with our anxiety about a problem rather than identify and address the real problem. As a painful example, if we work in a company culture of blame or rely on laying blame as a coping mechanism, and we participate in a root cause analysis, then we are likely to conclude our assessment with who was the problem.
Blaming a scapegoat temporarily relieves our anxiety, but it doesn’t find and address the real problem. The root cause remains to be found whether it is the system, process, design, information, training, or something else — like the company culture maybe.
This is a little deep, but consider it: Most of our coping strategies for dealing with problems simply address our anxiety about the problem rather than the real problem. However, when we identify and address the real problem, then we always learn and grow, becoming ever more free and powerful. I know which I prefer.
You have complete freedom of choice about how you define a problem.
Could the simplest solution really be the best?
From the agile approach to software development and project management I’ve learned that the simplest solution is often the best solution. This principle is an elegant response to a number of issues, including scope creep and over-engineering. It doesn’t actually mean to always go for the quickest fix — no not at all.
Here’s what it does mean: Examine and re-examine the goal (value) you are trying to achieve as you examine and re-examine the work (cost) you are proposing for fulfilling the goal. This is best done in dialog with others. Success is realizing the greatest value for the least cost.
My takeaway from this principle has led me to be a better buyer and a better supplier. How? Because whichever side of the conversation I am on (goal and value, or work and cost), I do my best to have an open and transparent conversation about the real value sought and the best (simplest, most direct) way to deliver that value.
Whichever side of the conversation you are on, you win by participating.
Simply solve the real problem, watch…
For Rory’s bottom right quadrant, I propose “agile” or the “Leadership Gift.” What do you think?
- Share the knowledge
Recommend on Facebook- Share on Linkedin
- Subscribe to the comments on this post
Lot of thoughts provoking ideas in this post.
Please allow me allow me to add the following.
Kanban implements small incremental changes that can produce improvement in terms of Lead Time and Value. Setting WIP and visualize Value Stream is the starting point in Kanban and they were proven to produce improvement. Rory’s astonishing ideas lend themselves to Kanban school of thought rather than Scrum. Scrum require significant changes up-front to facilitate its implementation.
Dr. Deming has stressed on the system as the cause of quality issues rather than people (blame attitude for problem solving). He created the Red Beads experiment to show management that poor quality is system related and can’t be solved by “blaming” workers or provide them incentives.
Sameh
Hi Sameh – thanks for your comments. I have been hearing more and more about Kanban for software development, but I admit I don’t know much about it. I was first introduced to KanBan as an inventory practice in manufacturing perhaps 20 years ago. So I will learn more.
And regarding Dr. Deming, I have been and remain a fan of his for at least 30 years. My father — a quality control engineer for welding wire manufacturing — tried to bring Dr. Deming to Union Carbide in the late 1940′s. I tell the story in a webinar recording on software quality.
The link http://www.kanban101.com/ is introductory course on Kanban prepared Janice Linden who is part of David Anderson’s (DJA) team.
Though it was originated as way to implement Just-in-Time of Toyota Production System, Kanban has been increasingly used in Software & Knowledge work.
Regarding Dr. Deming, I am fan of him too. I believe his work regarding management responsibility is linked to some of the ideas read in this blog. For example, the attitude of blame rather than addressing systemic causes.
DJA suggested that Kanban lends itself to Dr. Deming’s system of profound knowledge rather than Management-by-Objectives which is more what Scrum does.
Dr. Deming resists setting target or doing performance appraisal. We don’t require employee competition in-order to improve quality. According to him best inventions are made by those who worked solely and had pride in their craftsmanship. I think employee competition can lead to:
- Blame attitude
- Digress for systemic problems
Rory described in his video very simple ideas and low cost changes in the system or process which created high impact. These ideas are systemic oriented and can only be produced from those who have thorough understanding of the customer and above all “have NO fear”.
Many thanks for your attention to reply.
Hi Sameh,
Many thanks for the link. I’ve been following David’s travels via Twitter and Facebook, and he is the source of the Kanban references I have been seeing. David and I worked together on the Declaration of Interdependence and the Agile Project Leadership Network.
It is also good to be reminded of Deming’s appreciation for profound knowledge and issues with MBO.
I propose “Gifted Leadership”
Consider Mohandas Gandhi
or Jesus of Nazareth for example.
Neither had $$, both did small things that changed the world
I am studying Kanban, but even Kanban does not guarantee gifted leadership.
I like it Joel. Thanks.