| Article 4: Solving Critical Problems with Communication Andrew Herrington |
|
|
Outline: Situation: Your business has a critical problem - a development project is off the rails, you need to get it onto a new track, fast. The development team cannot identify an acceptable solution to the problem. The approaches that you have considered (rebuilding the team, selective people replacement, re-vectoring the product, following a new direction advocated by a few team members) are all too time consuming or are unacceptable for some other reason. This article describes a broadly applicable, communication intensive, problem solving approach that is usable within any of the widely varying management styles of high-tech, knowledge-worker businesses. The facilitative, schedule-driven methodology described is fast and keeps a functioning, though temporarily defeated, team in-place and working; properly applied the approach can re-energize the team, minimizing project delays. Typical situations in which the communication approach might be applied: - partially completed project becoming significantly delayed Basis for Approach: The basis for the approach is: (1) The use of a Problem Solver from outside the business. Nature of the Problem. The working assumption is that the team and managers involved with the troubled project have identified the problem and have offered solutions that
are not acceptable or available for any of a variety of reasons - the definition of a project "off-the-rails". The standard solutions have been worked through (see this link to ChacoCanyon Consulting for an excellent summary); the problem appears insoluble to all those involved. Most often the
team is, however, still motivated and is only temporarily defeated - it is asking for help. My experience indicates that, often, hidden communication frustrations, erroneous assumptions and
misunderstandings lie beneath the apparent lack of solutions, together with a kind of fatigue or disappointment that arises from the teams inability to solve the problem. Additionally, whilst the
original project might have been conceived in a systematic or holistic way, this essential nature might well have been unintentionally lost along the way creating the problem insidiously. - the ability to ask direct questions in a constructive and sensitive manner (a) To get a solution to the problem even if some personalities are temporarily bruised These statements are all written from the overall businesses viewpoint by the problem solver with most of the inputs coming from senior executives. This information describes the apparent situation of the project relative to the businesses current requirements for that project. It is critical that these statements are agreed by whoever ('executive management') is responsible for achieving success for the business from the viewpoint of shareholders. This can be the President, owner, executive team or other individual - depending upon how the business is organized. The statements should contain no element of blame or attribution of cause. The purpose of the statements is to establish an agreed position following the usual 'muddying of the waters' that occurs as problems build up and become recognized. The Problem Statement contains a clear summary of the symptoms of the problem. The Impact Statement should outline the effects of not solving the problem on the businesses success, including relative size of the impacts to the business as a whole. This can help to scale the size of the response to the problem; it also provides the problem solver with appropriate leverage within the organization. The Outcome Statement describes a range of possible, acceptable, outcomes. The intent is for the envelope of possible acceptable outcomes to be fully described. This defines the flexibilities that the Problem Solver can call upon in finding a solution and is intended to reflect a entirely realistic appraisal given the current situation. This statement may be subject to re-negotiation depending upon information discovered in the Problem Solving process. The content of the statement can include a wide variety of variables such as: - acceptable trade-offs between schedule and performance Step 3: The Problem Solver then calls a meeting with everybody involved in the project, following a brief meeting with the existing team managers to describe the process to be followed. The Problem Statement, Impact Statement and Outcome Statement are presented to the meeting. The Problem Solver has immediately to establish the projects future path and to make a statement about the role of the people involved, including the various technical and project leaders. The basic elements of the future direction are: - the role of the Problem Solver - to facilitate the team in finding a solution; role of the whole team - to help the Problem Solver make communication happen. The Problem Solver is not
interested in finding fault, only in finding a solution. The Problem Solver encourages the team to setup learning post-mortems at some point in the future. - indicating that many projects experience problems due to communication weaknesses, within the team and to and from the team. - that usually few team members are trained in communications yet teams are really all about communications - indicating that the team leaders will not change because the business is concerned with delivery of the product and not finger pointing - indicating that the business is aware that there is more to be learned from tough projects with problems that become successful than projects that have an easy time - by having a prior meeting with the team leaders and senior managers to explain the process to be followed Step 4: Work of the Problem Solver. The Problem Solver has a number of objectives - all of which must be discussed with the team members. These are: - to quickly shift the focus of work from achieving milestones to promoting intra-team communication in the context of the Problem Statement, Problem Impact Statement and Outcome
Statement. Problems Solvers Personal Responsibilities. The Problem Solver continually watches for consistencies and inconsistencies in the discussions and other information flows. He carefully points these positions out to individuals and sub-groups of the team. He continually presses for different interpretations from different team members, questions assumptions, asks why things are impossible, asks team members for the reasons behind their statements, asks people to re-state problems in various different ways and in different media. He will mix different groups of people, bring in others etc - all the time listening and questioning. He will ask highly critical questions in one-on-ones and then use the data obtained to re-focus questions on other individuals and groups. He will question all limitations and assumptions based on team members views of the companies internal and external environment, and on such areas as the capabilities of sub-contractors and suppliers, information from suppliers and software vendors etc. Often these styles of obtaining and examining information will prompt team members to start following similar patterns of behavior and this will sometimes lead to a solution. He will also be looking for factors that prevent the team from being successful in the future. Step 5: Rapid Forward Movement. Once this pattern of work is established an atmosphere of rapid forward movement can quickly develop. The work of the Problem Solver then enters a critical phase. The Problem Solver has to make a judgment of the likelihood of developing an acceptable solution from the process, in order to maintain the confidence of the businesses leaders. Usually this judgment is necessary before a clear solution that meets the requirement of the Outcome Statement has emerged. In this the Problem Solver can be guided by publicly questioning the team members. Have they found surprising new information ? Have some important erroneous assumptions been identified ? Does the Outcome Statement have flexibilities that team members had not identified ? Is there any measure of agreement on these points ? Step 6: Discussions with Management. Following further discussions with executive management and their appraisal of the situation the Problem Solver can now call a pivotal meeting that is intended to narrow the work of the team down to the pursuit of a limited number of promising directions. This meeting should define what is to be done, identify time-scales, possible outcomes and risks, and perform a match to the Outcome Statement. The Problem Solver should then draft a Situation Description Statement that describes a proposed new direction, together with a detailed analysis of project impacts and anticipated risks. It is central that this statement be agreed and committed to by all team members, because implementing the re-vectored project to success is their responsibility. Step 7: The New Project Plan has to be accepted by executive management. Key Points about this Problem Solving Process: a) The Problem Solver does not take over project leadership. He facilitates directed communication between team members (and whoever else the team identifies) in the problem context. b) The problem solving process is basically designed to unearth information already held by the project team in the light of the Problem Statement, Impact Statement and Outcome Statement. These three statements provide a focused new circumstance for the project by forcing executive management to carry out new situation appraisal that incorporates all the environmental changes that have impacted the business since the projects inception. c) The process forces new communication situations by mixing the project team in fresh ways and by actively facilitating fresh thinking d) The process should not be particularly time consuming e) The original team stays in place. No attempt is made to assign blame. Executive management is seen to provide the flexibility needed to find a solution, and this, together with the communications pause in project work, provides an opportunity for the team leaders to retain credibility. f) Central is that the Problem Solver facilitates the finding of a solution by providing superior communication skills - the ability to question gently and persistently in front of others who can spot opportunities, to promote Vital Discussion, to manage information flows, to focus meetings, to look for unexpected responses from team members as information is discussed, to make the process work, to look for inconsistencies and to be prepared to ask 'the stupid question' about assumptions. Team members always provide the knowledge that they provided at the projects inception and for which they were hired. g) What happens to the existing Project leaders, Project Managers and Program Managers ? It is essential that these people stay on board, involved, because they are likely continue to have ongoing responsibility for the project. It is hard to avoid the view that these people have failed. Yet if the Problem Solver - Facilitator can find a solution without bringing in special knowledge then the failure is one of communication, because the team always had the latent solution. Such a failure can be reasonably attributed to inadequate training - usually a failure of the business. Usually these people are highly technical (in the case of Project Leaders), specialist (Project Managers, who monitor and record progress after setting up the original schedule) or have a diverse set of over-viewing and information gathering responsibilities in the case of Program Managers. None are usually trained in inter-personal or inter-group communication skills. All are usually responsible to other more senior managers with limited time and technical understanding of the product; all probably lack senior experience so they are probably unused to watching for early signs of problems; all usually suffer from being 'too close' to the project. It is a critical part of the Problem Solvers responsibilities to keep these people motivated. Obviously the Problem Solver cannot prevent the organization from taking a view of team members after the problem is solved - but because the Problem Solver is known to have only a short term responsibility and is not technically able to criticize the team this effect should be reduced. Summary: The article describes how a communication based approach to problem solving can be used to identify the solution to a significant problem by exploiting latent knowledge within a team. The approach is conservative - it focuses on keeping the team together and it minimizes the introduction of new knowledge into an ongoing situation. It requires management to agree to a snapshot of the situation and to describe the envelope of possible outcomes. A facilitated period of communication is set-up by the Problem Solver to produce new flows of information throughout the team. The communication is facilitated and observed by a Problem Solver whose objective is to ensure that the information is as widely spread as possible, and is as widely discussed as possible. The Problem Solver encourages the team to constantly look for inconsistencies. The underlying rationale behind the approach is that the combination of information in the situation snapshot, uncovered inconsistencies and new ideas stimulated by discussion together with managing the flow of information into the team will lead to a conservative, efficient, focused and practical problem solution. The Problem Solver carefully manages the overall situation to obtain a solution as quickly and conservatively as possible. © Copyright 1999-2004 Andrew Herrington Pateo Consulting Top of Page Contact: Pateo Consulting © Copyright 1999-2004 Andrew Herrington Pateo Consulting |