Problem Solving (Part four) - The Final Solution

That title sounds ominous and not entirely true. In the spirit of continuous improvement, nothing is truly final. Rather, it’s just the end of the improvement cycle and the beginning of another.

In problem solving Part One, we identified the problem and the difference between a problem and symptom. Part Two worked on problem analysis. Part Three had you collecting data, analyzing that data and identifying the root cause(s). Whereas Parts One and Two appeared to go backwards in time to ensure we looked at a problem and not a symptom, Part Three had us heading forward toward a solution. Here we will continue that forward movement and finalize a solution. Everything up to this moment has been pretty easy. Most of Part Four is pretty easy, too. It might not look like it — but compared to the last step where you need to sustain the gain, it is a piece of cake.

We are going to continue using the A3 Problem Solving Report (Figure 1) below and concentrate on stepa 5a, 5b and 6 of the form. If you have done your “five why” analysis, you should have identified root causes and found solutions in step 4c. Solving world hunger has an obvious solution — feed the people. Without going through the “five why” process, you do not arrive at a viable solution. With viable solutions in hand in step 4c, you then list by number in step 5a. We are going to analyze and calculate each solution’s viability, which will give us the biggest bang for the buck.

In step 5a, we will look at five characteristics of each potential solution to arrive at a score for prioritization. This is especially valuable if resources are limited. The scoring system is simple and best if accomplished by the team that was assembled to resolve the problem. The process involves answering some simple questions with a specific response which will result in a prioritized result. It is a democratic voting process: you either state you do not agree scoring a one, agree scoring a three, or are neutral (which is a maybe scoring a two). The highest score is a solution that should be pursued. The five characteristics are control, relevance, resources, payback and buy in. Let’s look at each.

Control

Do you have control to implement this solution? Do you have the authority or can you readily obtain the authority to proceed with this solution?

Relevance

Will the solution have a significant impact on prevention? Any solution that was found in the previous analysis was discovered because it was applicable to the root cause. Look at the entire list of selected solutions and determine which will have the greatest impact on correcting the root cause(s) and preventing it or them from recurring.

Resources

Do you have or can you readily obtain the required resources? Some solutions might not require resources at all and some might require a substantial outlay. The concern at this point is whether or not resources are available, not how much is available.

Payback

What is the cost benefit in implementing the solution? You will have to include long-term savings and costs in this measure. You don’t want to fall into the “penny wise, pound foolish” scenario. Some solutions will simply not be worth the effort.

Buy in

Will you get buy in from those impacted by the solution? You want to know if there is going to be resistance or cooperation if the solution is implemented. Look beyond those that are impacted directly by the implementation of the solution — determine if ancillary or associated activities will be affected and what their reaction will be. This will be an educated guess.

Let’s look at the problem about trained telephone staff in Part Three. The analysis only came up with two potential solutions: external training and a train-the-trainer course. We’ll call them Solution One and Solution Two and we’ll complete step 5a, Figure 2.

Do you have control? Upper management gave the go ahead to pursue training in this area, so that would get a three for both approaches.

Is it relevant? They are both going to be relevant,  but is one more relevant than the other? It doesn’t look that way, so both get a three again.

Do you have the resources? This takes some research, as perhaps there is only an external training source and a train-the-trainer course is not available. In this case, Solution One would get a three whereas Solution Two would get a one.

Which has a better cost benefit? The payback for Solution One is immediate but short term, whereas the pay back for Solution Two has the advantage of being long term. You might wind up with a split decision here because there are benefits to both solutions. It might be more beneficial to have an outside trainer come in periodically to train whoever will have updated training materials, versus using a home-grown trainer who does it part time and lacks the latest information. The home-grown trainer will have intimate knowledge of the organization. This can be a hard decision to make. Let’s say that the decision is to bring in an outside trainer but to dismiss the use of a train-the-trainer program completely. Then Solution One gets a three and Solution Two gets a two.

How will people receive the solution? Sometimes people are more receptive to an instructor from outside the organization and sometimes they are more receptive to someone who understands their particular situation intimately. This is a decision that requires knowledge of the organization’s culture. You will have to guess — but let’s say that a trainer within the ranks would be more acceptable than an outside contractor. Here Solution One might get a two and Solution Two gets a three. Figure 3 shows the results.

Solution One appears to come out ahead, but keep in mind that if the pay-back criteria were switched it would be a tie. This isn’t a scientific method and

requires a lot a surmising and guess work; however, it can provide a guide in prioritizing the solutions. Once you have prioritized your solutions, you would assign Solution One to an owner who would have responsibility for its implementation if resources are tight. If, on the other hand, you have the resources to pursue both solutions, then that would also get assigned an owner. Regardless, the owner is assigned with a reasonable target date and he/she is supplied with the necessary resources to complete the task. This is all recorded in Step 5b, Figure 4.

Now you sit back and let the plan progress, right? Wrong. Monitor progress to ensure that roadblocks are removed and that appropriate focus remains on the solution. The “status” may be used for recording the progress as on target, behind target, ahead of target, in process, completed, etc. You can define that as you find fitting but you must provide both clear and unambiguous goals and the means to achieve that result. The important thing is that marking the status complete is not the end of the journey. Did what you did do what it was supposed to do? You need to follow up to ensure that the anticipated gains have been achieved — so we move on to step 6, Figure 5.

In Step 6, you determine the effectiveness of the solutions that have been implemented. Did they meet the target? This is not a target date but the target result. Is this where you wanted to be? The answer could be a simple yes or no. When examining the effectiveness of the solution, consider whether or not the target was met and whether or not you underestimated the effectiveness of the original target goal. Did other unforeseen circumstances come into play? If either of these is not attained, you will have to go back to determine if you need to re-analyze the information, need to gather other information, or you need to introduce the new unforeseen information that changed the outcome. However, if the target was met and is found to be effective, you need to standardize the process.

This is by far the hardest part of this entire exercise and takes persistence against resistance. You have to be patient with these types of changes. It might have taken years to get to where you are, so don’t expect to get where you want to be in a few hours. Culture has a tendency to return to its normal state without continuous redirection and forming a new norm. Delving into this area is the subject of volumes of literature — but let’s continue on with problem solving.

This method is not the only method nor even the best method available. The best method is going to be the method that you are comfortable with using as an organization. Below is a list of some other problem-solving methods. Some are proprietary but most are just a matter of learning the method.

Ford 8D

Polya Solve It

TRIZ       

MEDA

TapRoot

FMEA

Shainin Process

This ends this series on problem solving but it will not eliminate the habit of finger pointing. Problems are typically caused by bad systems, not bad people. You will have human error as long as you have human involvement. We are not infallible and no system is perfect. Those two together is a problem brewing. You can always say the person should know better, but the person has more than likely fallen into a systems trap. It is much less likely for a problem to manifest itself if the system is designed to prevent the mistake from occurring in the first place.

Patrick Kinane joined the Air Force after high school and has worked in aviation since 1964. Kinane is a certified A&P with Inspection Authorization and also holds an FAA license and commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating. He earned a bacherlor of science degree in aviation maintenance management, MBA in quantitative methods, Master of Science degree in education and Ph.D. in organizational psychology. The majority of his aviation career has been involved with 121 carriers where he has held positions from aircraft mechanic to director of maintenance. Kinane currently works as Senior Quality Systems Auditor for AAR Corp. and adjunct professor for DeVry University instructing in organizational behavior, total quality management (TQM) and critical thinking. PlaneQA is his consulting company that specializes in quality and safety system audits and training. Speaking engagements are available with subjects in critical thinking, quality systems and organizational behavior. For more information, visit www.PlaneQA.com.