copyright 2000, dr, larry w. long1 by dr. larry w. long chapter 6 problem definition, teams &...
Post on 22-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
1
byDr. Larry W. Long
Chapter 6Problem Definition, Teams & Tools
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
2
Problem Definition Models• Reflective thinking• Koehler’s RPIM• Koehler’s PAIM• Brainstorming• Synectics• Intertia Activation• Larson’s Questions• Hierarchical• Elaborated Hierarchical
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
3
Dewey’s Reflective Thinking
• Problem-solving– experience difficulty– isolate and define difficulty– suggest possible solutions– examine solutions – choose solution / implement– evaluate situation
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
4
Dewey’s Reflective Thinking
• Assumption:– All information is available
• Strength:– Logical, time-tested approach
• Weakness:– Assumes everyone has
access to all information necessary to define and solve problem
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
5
Koehler’s RPIM-Model
• Reactive Problem Identification - Model
• A Cause and Effect Strategy– Identify undesirable condition– Identify cause of condition– Identify ways to remove or alter
the cause
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
6
Koehler’s RPIM-Model
• Define desirable outcomes
• Describe what occurred
• Explore effects• Identify negative
effects• Define cause of
negative effects
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
7
Koehler’s RPIM-Model• Assumption:
– Identify cause, remove cause, solve problem
• Strength:– Identifies negative
effects; enables specific action
• Weakness:– Problems rarely
have one cause
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
8
Koehler’s PAIM or Goal Achievement
• ProActive problem Identification - Model
• Three Questions:– What is the goal or object– What blocks goal achievement– How can the barriers be removed
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
9
Koehler’s PAIM
• Assumption:– Assumes barriers to
goals are problems that need to be identified and removed
• Weakness:– Requires clear,
mutual, understanding of long and short-term goals
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
10
Brainstorming
• Free expression without evaluation
• Everyone participates fully
• Evaluation begins after all ideas are expressed
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
11
Brainstorming• Assumption:
– An open environment creates high quality solutions
• Strength:– Multi-purpose approach– High-quality decisions– Encourages creativity
• Weakness:– Time-consuming and vague– Norms can impede creative
ideas
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
12
Synectics Strategies
• Begin with solutions– Identify solutions by
Fantasizing– Evaluate solutions– Repeat fantasize -
evaluation sequence– Develop consensus
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
13
Synectics Strategies• Assumption:
– Employees are obstacles to identifying problems and solutions
• Strength:– Freedom to generate
creative solutions
• Weakness:– Dependent on
worker’s ability to be uninhibited and on support of the organization
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
14
Inertia-Activation Strategies
• Group with the same values or opposite values
• Activate their values
• Frustration, inertia, release of energy
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
15
Inertia-Activation Strategies• Assumption:
– Forced inertia results in activity; produces results
• Strength:– Problem/solution
identified readily and effectively
• Weakness:– People become
anxious and uncomfortable
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
16
Larson’s Single Questions
• What is the problem• Subdivide question
into sub-questions• Gather information;
assess solutions• Similar to outlining
speech
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
17
Hierarchical Strategies
• Structure the problem into parts or chunks
• Order from most to least important
• Select solution that matches importance of the problem
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
18
Hierarchical Strategies• Assumption:
– Assumes there are degrees of information
• Strength:– Recognizes the
complexity of organizational problems
– Provides equal emphasis on selecting solution
• Weakness:– Problems are often
too complex for one simple solution
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
19
Elaborated Hierarchical
• Chunk problem / identify complexity• Intraorganizational vs. interorganizational• Internal vs. external / work vs. person• Determine and rank solutions• Solutions often create new problems
IdentifyProblem
LocateContext
OrderSubproblem
IdentifySolutions
AssessConsequences
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
20
Elaborated Hierarchical• Assumption:
– Problems consists of multiple, overlapping causes
• Strength:– Systematic attempt to
subdivide and prioritize problems
– Defines problem more completely
• Weakness:– Complex process
requiring time and skilled personal
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
21
PSID Models & Complexity
• Elaborated hierarchial
• Hierarchical
• Inertia-activation
• Synectics
• Brainstorming
• Goal achievement - PAIM
• Cause-Effect - RPIM
Most complex
Least Complex
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
22
Using teams
• Team vs. committee• When to use teams• Team advantages• Team purpose• Team composition
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
23
Team vs. committee
• size (6 to 8) vs. larger group• not necessarily representative vs.
representative• consensus vs. directed or majority rule• responsible for outcome vs. advisory• use of tools vs. dialogue• use of data vs. conjecture
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
24
When is a TEAM needed?
Sponsor has identified a critical process to be improved
Desirable to enhance productive efficiency
Desirable to maximize PARTICIPANT satisfaction
Desirable to gain participant “buy-in!”
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
25
TEAM advantages
Reduces job role isolation Process vs. individual action Focus on team vs. individual rewards Reduces interpersonal competition &
enhances cooperation Overcomes vested interests Identifies process bottlenecks
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
26
TEAM Purpose
Improve effectiveness & efficiency of process, by
acquisition, transformation, disposal of physical, capital, human, information
resources to benefit all participants
input throughput output
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
27
Who should be in a PAT? Non-management and management
employees who are experienced, expert in the process
Suppliers (input providers) Customers (output users) Process operators (input transformers) Facilitator (objective 3rd party)
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
28
Team Decision Tools – purpose & application
(derived from Brassard & Ritter, Fisher, Cragan & Wright)
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
29
Decision Tools – Typical Flow (MJII)
Brainstorming
Aspect Grouping
Interrelationship Digraph
Fishbone
Task & Objective Plan
Flowchart
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
30
Facilitation Tools & Uses
BRAINSTORMING Discover ideas
ASPECT Grouping Group ideas
INTERRELATIONSHIP Find main influence
FISHBONE Identify causes
Task & Objective Plan Map/implement
FLOWCHART Map the process
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
31
Flowcharting1. Define boundaries
2. List steps (brainstorm)
3. Sequence steps
Input/begin (materials,
information or action)
Task orActivity
#1
Decision
Task orActivity
#2
Task orActivity
#3 Output/End
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
32
Brainstorming
T3 T4T2
T6T7
T8
T11T9
T5T1
T10
1. State issue
2. Write down ideas and display
3. Review/generate more ideas
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
33
Aspect Grouping
T8
Issue
Aspect 1 Aspect 2
T1
T5
T6
1. Phrase issue in a full sentence
2. Simultaneously sort all ideas into related groupings
3. Assign aspect label for each group
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
34
Interrelationship Digraph
A3
A4 A2
A11. List aspects from aspect
grouping session2. For each possible pair
(#aspects-1) determine which primarily influences outcomes from the other
3. Tally outgoing and incoming arrows for each issue to determine primary influencers
I = 2.5O =.5
I = 1O = 2
I = 2.5O =.5
I = 0O = 3
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
35
Fish Bone
#1 Influence
1. Select main influencer from interrelationship digraph, then brainstorm & aspect group to --
2. Generate main causes
3. Generate sub-causes
4. Sub-sub causes, etc.
Copyright 2000, Dr, Larry W. Long
36
Task & objective plan1. Based on digraph/fishbone
outcomes, write goal; determine completion date
2. List measurable objectives required to reach goal
3. Brainstorm actions needed to achieve each objective -- break each into steps
4. Determine time needed to do step5. Develop schedule6. Implement & monitor
GOAL(to be completed by . . .)
OBJ 120 days
OBJ 290 days
OBJ 360 days
S1a
S2a
S3a
S2b
S1d
S2c
S1bS1c
S1d