As part of this semester’s MP course I wanted to solicit feedback on my performance from constituents beyond my direct supervisor. I looked through the web for different options, and I found that I favor MIT’s performance evaluation templates the most. They have two formats that I think can be used to capture a lot of information about feedback on our professional performances.
One of them is focused on a quantitative evaluation of your performance along several parameters; the other is more narrative style and asks for stories regarding your development in your role and your organization.
As a quick summary, here are the parameters around which the quant one measures performance:
1. Proficiency/skill in carrying out assignments (ability/competency)
2. Planning/organizing/prioritizing work load (analysis/time management)
3. Holds self accountable for assigned responsibilities (accountability/reliability)
4. Proficiency at improving work methods/procedures (continual improvement)
5. Effective communicator
6. Ability to work independently/ or with a team
7. Willingness to take on additional responsibilities
8. Adeptness in analyzing facts, problem solving, decision-making, and demonstrating good judgement (sensible thinker)
All managers are different, and some people may have managers that have unclear expectations, or do not communicate their expectations. This points to the importance of being able to manage oneself. I think that pointers such as these can lead the individual to continually reflect and evaluate their own performance. Of course, we may not be as objective as an outside source (but heck, they are likely not to be objective either!), but at least we can bring a greater awareness to monitoring our performance. By bringing a higher level of awareness, we should be able to hone in on issues, and do a little trouble-shooting ourselves.
Effective leaders tend to find a strong balance between data analysis and intuition. Many times, the aspect of intuition comes from recognizing patterns or trends. A big part of problem solving is recognizing these trends and finding ways to minimize its reoccurrence. Additionally, it is important for leaders to understand the true essence of the problem rather than finding a temporary fix that will likely rise again in the near future. This gives leaders more time to focus on other areas of the business rather than continuing to fix the same problem over and over again.
Understanding the intricacies of every aspect of the business is one way to develop a strong sense of how your decisions can affect specific areas of the business. Effective leaders don’t look at problems as a nuisance; effective leaders see problems as an opportunity for ongoing improvements.
Forbes has come up with four characteristics that make an effective leader:
1) Transparent Communication: The main takeaway is that transparent communication allows for other people to be heard. It fosters an environment where people are willing to speak up if there is an issue.
2) Break Down Silos: The importance of this characteristic is to eliminate boundaries. It is important to solve problems that affect the overall business rather than one segment of the business.
3) Open-Minded People: Effective leaders are ones who are not discouraged to find innovative ways to solve a problem. They are individuals that do not avoid the problem; they are not afraid to face problems head-on.
4) A Solid Foundational Strategy: As we have learned in our Strategy course, a business without a strategy is dangerous. Effective leaders go beyond figuring out the problem; they find ways to implement a strategy to solve the problem. This includes resource allocation and budgeting.
Some final takeaways are:
Always step back and assess the situation; never take a blind guess when solving a problem.
Find ways to solve the cause of the problem to eliminate it from reoccurring.
Learn from your previous failures and use those lessons learned to solve future problems.
Don’t avoid problem solving; challenge yourself to solve the problem head-on.
In our first semester we learned about issue trees in MP and event trees in DDA and how they help break-down problem statements into solvable nuggets. In addition to these trees, here are three more analytical frameworks to breakdown problems:
Means-ends networks: The initial problem statement is broken down by identifying all the obstacles that hinder reaching the goal. Then develop an action to get past this obstacle and in turn identify new obstacles that would thwart this plan. When all of these levels’ impediments are addressed, the overall problem statement should be solved.1
Objective hierarchy: Another hierarchical structure where a broad objective is developed out of the problem statement at the highest level. This objective is broken down into narrower objectives. As the objectives get narrower they take the form of actions, therefore they are called ‘means objectives’.2
Consequence tables: This structure is useful in comparing multiple options. List the multiple alternatives on one axis of the table and attributes to compare on the other axis. Give each alternative a rating for each attribute (the rating being relative to that of the other alternatives). Color coding the ratings based on different thresholds visually helps in comparing the alternatives.3
Looking back at our past two MP project I feel as though a means-end network would have been very beneficial (in addition to the issue trees we developed). There were several obstacles in both the Carlos Museum and Delta projects that needed to be sorted out and solved at a basic level.
I’ve always been fascinated by the Space Race of the 1960s. I am particularly amazed by the fact that in less than ten short years we went from considering space the realm of Hollywood and science-fiction to the kind of reality that you could watch live on the television in your living room. How did they do it? Computers? A bottomless budget? Sure, there were major advances in computer processing and increases in federal financing, but how did they go from being behind the Soviet Union to surpassing them en route to being the first nation to rendezvous, dock and land on the moon? I believe it has a lot to do with the team management practices that were exercised by NASA’s space flight leadership team. In former Flight Director Gene Kranz’s book Failure is not an Option he described how the NASA team was able to advance quickly through the Apollo program towards landing on the moon by saying, “Apollo succeeded at critical moments like this because the bosses had no hesitation about assigning critical tasks to one individual, trusting his judgment and then getting out of his way.” The basis for this trust was largely due to the emphasis NASA leadership placed on communicating, mapping out systematic solutions to complex problems, and establishing clear responsibilities for solving those problems and executing their designed solutions.
What’s interesting is that this is exactly what we were taught to do in MP. Upon reviewing the slides Professor Noonan presented during the Fall Semester, it is apparent that many of the lessons shared by our own “decision Jedi” were actually put to use by NASA in their effort to win the Space Race. Two slides, in particular seem applicable, which I’ve paraphrased below:
Intro Deck, Slide #24:
MP learning objectives and topics include: (a) defining the central problem in a situation; (b) connecting that problem to effective teamwork; (c) developing and delivering valuable insights; and (d) connecting those insights to effective action. “Excellence is an art won by training and habituation.” – Aristotle
Part 3 Deck, Slide #2:
How can we organize and manage team effort? (A) Appropriate work stream: (i) Targeted analyses, (ii) Spanning the tree, (iii) Driven by issues, and (iv) Focused using hypotheses; (B) Productive: (i) Focused info, resource needs; (ii) Clear, specific deliverables and declines; and (C) Effective use of team: (i) Responsibility and (ii) Coordination.
During the Space Race, the engineers and test pilots at NASA trained religiously, and spent extensive time developing rules and procedures for their flights. Since no one had ever flown in space before, each new mission provided an opportunity to literally “write the manual” on how certain objectives should be reached. Because the lives of the colleagues and friends, as well as the future of the nation, depended upon their precision, these engineers would try to consider every step of every mission from all angles before lighting a single rocket. In doing so, they were essentially asking themselves closing their eyes and asking themselves, “what do we need to do to achieve X?” and then building out mental “issue trees,” branches of which were then assigned to specific departments or team members to research, resolve and execute.
Apollo 13 (Theatrical Poster)
Although this kind of structured team management and leadership was a part of each stage of the Space Race, the most enduring display came in April of 1970, during the Apollo 13 mission. One of the most detailed accounts of how the Apollo 13 problems were tackled can be found in Flight Director Gene Kranz’s account in Failure is not an Option. Kranz describes how he broke the task down into key parts (e.g., power, trajectory, using the LM as a lifeboat for three men when it was designed for two, etc.) and then began in a structured and disciplined form of “brain storming” (or what some might call “brain steering”) during which every option was explored to ensure that the issue tree was mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.Short of reading Kranz’s book yourself, you can get an idea of what happened during the Apollo 13 mission by viewing the 1995 film starring Tom Hanks. Below are some key points in the film and links to YouTube clips that help provide a nice representation of this kind of team management:
Flight Director, Gene Kranz – sporting his famous “white team” vest
1) Shortly after the explosion occurs on the Command Module, mission control begins to devolve into chaos over the news that the Apollo 13 spacecraft is mysteriously venting oxygen into outer space. Gene Kranz focuses the group by saying, “Let’s work the problem people, let’s not make things worse by guessing.” (NOTE, only the first 42 seconds of this clip are from the scene that I’m referring to here, you can ignore the rest). Kranz’s statement reframes the crisis as a problem that can be solved, not a moment for mindless panic, and in so doing he returns his team to the tasks they’ve been trained to do: solve space flight problems in a systematic fashion. Moreover, although it’s hard to appreciate from this short clip, you can get a sense for how direct the lines of communication are in mission control. Every person has a role to play and their area of expertise is distinct. Gene Kranz sources information from each of them and provides specific instructions to each group. He never says, “somebody go do that” it’s always clear communication directed at a specific individual or sub-team so everyone knows who is responsible for generating the answer to a specific question.
2) After relocating the astronauts to the LM (a/k/a Lunar Module, LEM), Gene Kranz makes it clear that the old flight plan is being tossed out the window and he focuses the team’s brainstorm efforts on the key question, “How do we get our people home?” When the sling-shot around the moon idea is presented a debate ensues, displaying how team members are wearing “different colored hats,” to essentially test the strength of the proposed solution.
3) When faced with the challenge of managing the power supply, a man named “John” proposes that everything must be turned off otherwise the LM will run out of power in 16 hours, not 45 hours. A cacophony of negative responses fills the room but Gene Kranz assesses the situation, makes the decision to power down the LM and moves on with the remaining team members to say they need to find a squeeze every amp out of the electronics in the spacecraft –“failure is not an option!” This particular scene displays the trust Kranz placed in his team members and their expertise, and, again, the power of positioning each challenge as a problem that can be solved by specific team members or sub-groups of team members.
4) As one team works on the electronic power issues, another is just discovering that the CO2 levels in the LEM are rising and that the filters from the Odyssey and the LEM are not compatible. This leads to the famous “Square peg in a round hole” problem. This might be the most incredible problem solved during the mission, and if you’d like to read more about it, you can do so here. The work done by Ed Smylie’s “tiger team” unquestionably saved the lives of the three astronauts, but again it shows the value of breaking a big problem (“how do we get our guys home?”) into smaller questions and dividing the task of researching and resolving those problems up to be the responsibility of smaller groups or individuals.
Years later, the Apollo 13 the flight commander, Jim Lovell, during a separate interview, suggested the Apollo 13 mission and provides several key takeaways for business leaders:
Identify the problem and figure out what you have to solve it;
Communicate – you need to share information with your team members in order to solve the problem;
Good leadership and good teamwork are marked by perseverance and initiative.
Thanks to this structured approach to problem solving and team management, NASA was able to bring the crew of Apollo 13 home and in the process they achieved what is largely regarded as the administration’s finest hour. If you’re interested in learning how you too can achieve this level of success within your own organization, I would invite you to review the aforementioned slides and check out the movie Apollo 13 on iTunes or your preferred viewing platform. Remember, “FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION!”
Apollo 13 crew members Fred W. Haise, James A. Lovell, and John L. “Jack” Swigert, arriving at the USS Iwo Jema after safely landing in the South Pacific Ocean.
Although the MP projects we were given the previous two semesters were real issues, one aspect that was limited (due to the sheer number of students) was a constant engagement between us and the firm we were trying to help, to narrow the scope. Boiling down to the scope was part of the MP learning process, however Detlof von Winterfeld and Barbara Fasolo point out in “Structuring Decision Problems: A Case Studying and Reflections for Practitioners” how much of an iterative process structuring a problem and decision analysis can be. Shown below is the decision analysis ‘snake diagram’ that clearly shows the back and forth that is necessary, especially in the early stages of a project, between the decision board (decision makers) and the decision team (decision analysts – those that are responsible for formulating a solution). After being given the scope of the problem, the decision team has the decision board sign off on their understanding of the problem prior to moving on. This gives the decision analysts an opportunity to refine the scope of the project with the assistance of the decision makers.
Brainstorming is also included in the way of developing alternatives and assessing them. Not surprisingly the Plan for Action and Implementation only take up a third of this process with most of the foundation work being done prior, as was suggested in MP.
Figure 1. Spetzler Snake Diagram for Decision Analysis. von Winterfeldt, Detlof and Fasolo, Barbara, “Structuring Decision Problems: A Case Studying and Reflections for Practitioners” (2009). Published Articles & Papers. Paper 30.
Oftentimes, we can be inundated with information from work, school, and other obligations. We have covered a lot of this information in our MP course, but it is good information to look at and keep in mind when faced with trying to solve a problem in your business. McKinsey has developed a strategic problem-solving model that is specifically set in place to help MBA students build knowledge and skillsets in strategy.
Here is McKinsey’s strategic problem-solving model:
We must first start with defining the problem and determining what information is required to expand your research on that problem. This is where you “frame the problem” and then develop a hypothesis based on that problem. At this step, we develop an issue tree to break down our ideas into smaller components.
Once you develop an issue tree, you need to sort out the information into what you know and what you don’t know. Then you seek out more information on those topics that you don’t know by using fact-finding and interviewing techniques to gather information.
Here are a few tips to keep in mind when following this problem-solving model:
Be sure to follow facts, not intuition
Figure out the underlying issue before diving into the project
Don’t reinvent the wheel; follow the frameworks given to you
Look to other resources to help guide you with your research
Garbage in = garbage out
First, look at the annual report, then outliers in data as well as best practices in the industry
For the sake of switching things up, I thought that I would share with you a show that really knows how to “dig deep” (pun completely intended) into the things that we often take for granted. If you have the time and are interested in finding ways to approach problems in a very different and unique way, I highly suggest you watch “Going Deep with David Rees” on National Geographic (the show just started airing a couple of weeks ago).
Why does this matter and how does it apply to this course? Sure, the topics may seem silly, ranging from learning how to tie a shoe to creating the perfect ice cube for your scotch, but the show does a great job at taking a simple concept and really understanding the components that go into it. Let me explain one of the episodes to help give you some better insight. The steps are rather detailed, but that’s really the point.
How some of us think about digging a hole:
1. Grab a shovel.
2. Dig.
How David Rees thinks about digging a hole:
1. He first addresses the problem and what he’s looking to accomplish (he wants to build a “party hole”).
2. David went to an experimental mine at the Colorado School of Mines to understand how these subject matter experts dig holes in the mine. From there, he determines that digging a hole into a rock is too dangerous for him and as a result the scope of his project changes.
3. He goes to a soil biologist to figure out the best combination of sand, silt, and clay to dig the perfect hole (medium loom).
4. David then goes to visit “Dr. Shovel” at Penn State University where he tests out a number of shovels to determine which ones are most efficient for him to use. From there, he learns that you actually need a couple of types of shovels for different stages of a dig.
5. David learns that the hole he designed was actually flawed and potentially dangerous if he doesn’t “shore up the sides.” This discovery makes him adapt and change his original plans.
6. So where does he go to learn how to shore up the sides? He goes to a golf course to learn how to keep his hole intact.
7. From there, David goes to a cemetery to meet with a professional digger to learn better techniques on how to dig a hole. They first mark down the location and dimensions of the hole they are going to dig.
8. He then goes to Harvard University to understand how the field mouse burrows a hole. There, he learns that these field mice dig much faster when they dig together instead of alone. As a result, David learns that he will be much more efficient if he has his friends help dig the hole with him.
Whether you’re a project manager, part of the product development team, or your manager asks you to give a presentation on the dynamics of your competition within the industry, you can use some of the analysis and problem solving skills that are utilized throughout this show. That, and you may get a good laugh out of the show as well. And you thought digging a hole was easy?
One way that you can go about organizing your thoughts and structuring a problem is by putting your thoughts into “buckets.” Here are a few examples that you can use when starting a new project:
Bucket by:
1) Time: Sort by past, present, and future. This helps show different phases of a project.
2) Function: A process flow chart will help visualize which functions are impacted by the project. This will also help give you a visual on what time(s) your function is affected.
3) Root cause: A fish-bone diagram will help show you all of the resource-related items that are grouped together. It also helps show how these root causes add value to the problem.
In this article, which I found on Business Insider, the author discusses how to be a more effective critical thinker and problem solver. He speaks about how after obtaining a position as a strategy consultant after his MBA, he struggled to solve problems quickly and effectively for clients. A mentor then coached him to “START WITH THE ANSWERS.” This advice that was very foreign to the author at the time. He struggled with this concept but his mentor taught him how to start with the basic structure of a problem they were trying to solve and then develop some hypotheses around that problem based on any given knowledge or prior experience. Then they would put the hypotheses down into a structured diagram with answers that tie to the logic of the problem they were trying to solve. The mentor noted that once they knew the structure of the problem and the possible solutions, they could plan the data that proves or disproves their theories.
This immediately made me think of Issue Trees; a concept I struggled with when first presented to us by Professor Noonan in fall semester. I felt that I could not come up with possible solutions before knowing all of the facts or researching all of the relevant information I needed to try to find the solution. But the mentor in this article also makes a good point that the key to this top-down approach to critical thinking is to not be married to the original answer but by having an original hypothesis or hypotheses, one can begin to focus the data that one collects regarding the solution, as well as begin to socialize the “answers” to illicit feedback and reactions, which can help to hone in on a real and viable solution.
