Ill-structured problems are easier to solve if you have a good definition of the problem. And that’s easier said than done. Ill-structured problems, lacking crucial information, are open to many interpretations. The closer you can get to the essence of the problem, the better your chances of finding effective solutions.
As an example, look at this problem statement: “How may we prevent knowledgeable employees from leaving the company, taking their expertise with them?”
Making the problem smaller
The question is very wide: it tries to capture too many issues at once. To narrow it down, you need to establish if this problem is about preventing employees from leaving, or retaining their knowledge. Should the emphasis be on capturing this knowledge, or providing incentives for employees not to leave? Is the main problem keeping the employees, or capturing their knowledge?
Maybe there is a further element of the problem that this definition has not captured. Your focus would be different if the employees who are leaving the company come from the same department, or the same job level, or from various divisions and salary scales.
Are you solving the right problem?
A vague definition may mean that you solve the wrong problem. Your focus may fall on preventing employees from leaving, while it would be more effective to capture their knowledge before they leave. Or you might explore how to stop employees from leaving, when the real problem is why they are leaving.
Question the question
There are many ways to help you formulate the question. One of these is to examine key words in the statement. Here is a technique described—with slight variations—by Edward de Bono, Arthur VanGundy, and Tudor Rickards. You can use it either to refine your problem statement or, if you are stuck for solutions, find different ways of looking at the problem.
The technique is simple, but powerful. First, underline the key words in your problem statement.
“How may we prevent knowledgeable employees from leaving the company, taking their expertise with them?”
Now find several synonyms for each key word. Using thesaurus.com, I get: How may we …
| prevent | knowledgeable | employees from | leaving the company … | |
| avert | wise | escaping | ||
| avoid | experienced | fleeing | ||
| bar | perceptive | disappearing | ||
| block | appreciative | vanishing | ||
| counter | defecting | |||
| forbid | ||||
| hamper | ||||
| inhibit | ||||
| limit | ||||
| intercept |
The synonyms are not exact replacements for the key words, prompting you to look at the problem from slightly different angles.
If you replace leaving with vanishing, it might suggest that the problem is not the leaving, but the fact that the knowledgeable employees are completely lost to the company. This might suggest offering them contracts to consult or mentor employees.
If you replace leaving with fleeing, it might lead you to consider why these employees are leaving. Can you remove some of the stumbling blocks?
“Counter knowledgeable employees from defecting” could suggest that you investigate what they are leaving for. Do other companies headhunt employees with better offers? How can you counter this?
Replacing knowledgeable by experienced adds another dimension to explore: knowledge can be captured, but experience needs teaching, demonstrating, and guidance.
And that’s it!
_____________________________________________________
Bibliography
De Bono, E. (1970). Lateral thinking: creativity step by step, Harper & Row.
Rickards, T. (1974). Problem-solving through creative analysis. Epping: Gower Press.
VanGundy, A. B. (1988). Techniques of structured problem solving (2nd ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Comments