Planning & Implementing Solution (book chapter 5 on problem solving)

[ccochran]

Cove friends,

Hello! Hope it's warm and sunny wherever you are. I'm slowly chipping away at this problem solving book. Here is Chapter 5, Planning and Implementing Solutions. As always, I would love to hear any feedback you might have on it. Thanks in advance for your wise guidance.

Craig

 

[JaneB]

Hope it's warm and sunny wherever you are.

Actually it has cooled down (about 22C) but the sun is shining, and after our long hard summer of extreme heat, killer fires and ongoing drought, it's nice to be cooler. Glad to hear you're writing on - look forward to reading it.

 

[ccochran]

Jane,

Ooops! I forgot...not everybody is coming off winter like me. Please excuse me. I've heard the drought in Australia has been very bad. May the rains come soon and hard there. I hope you've had a fine summer, despite all of nature's challenges. Did you have an opportunity to wow them with your bikini? That might have driven the temps even higher...

Craig

 

[JaneB]

Bikini? But of course. See here.


(Actually, not. Born in England and have the kind of fair English skin which goes with red hair and needs serious protection from sun at all times. But the pic amused me as I hope it will you)

 

[ccochran]

Jane, your fur is SMOKIN'!

 

[JaneB]

Smokin' fur or otherwise, I've read the chapter now Craig & liked it a lot.

Herewith some feedback.

• page 1 - "if all SIX are applied" (not 7)
  
• consider 'creating' or 'drawing up' a plan rather than 'building' it. Might sound hair-splitting but a/ it sounds less onerous and b/I think is more accurate. After all, you plan a structure (and then build it). Plus it even reinforces your urge toward 'creative solutions' rather than the more mundane inference of 'building to a plan'.
  
• Structurally, consider making the headings consistent with your list of 6 principles stated up front; including adding the principle # to the heading. It's easier then to be clearer about where I'm up to in the chapter.
  
• Brainstorming questions: add in 'IT/technology' added to process not only 'machines' (that MF basis again Craig!)
  
• I liked the multi-voting techinque - hadn't come across it before
  
• Have you considered replacing some of the text under suspicious corrective actions (eg, 'Retraining', 'Revise procedures') with a bullet list of various questions? Some of the explanatory text may be a bit redundant, plus I wonder if listing the questions will help/prompt readers more, and htus in turn they would be able to ask those questions (& thus prompt others to think more) Plus it breaks up the blocks of text.
  
• Structurally - would you also consider being more consistent in presenting each of these SCAs, eg, present the underlying assumption, say what's wrong with it, then the questions (whatever - but following a similar pattern).
  
• p10 typo (filly for fully) nice one!
  
• Excellent advice throughout. Loved the bit on selling the solution - so often forgotten!

Enjoy Easter.

 

[ccochran]

Jane,

Thank you so much for checking out the chapter. You have a very sharp eye. I'll make all these changes you suggest.

In your 6th bullet, you suggest using some questions to elaborate on the suspicious corrective actions. Can you think of an example of what you're talking about? I like the concept, but I can't seem to implement it. If you throw me a quick example I can probably pick up the ball and run with it.

Talk to you soon,
Craig

 

[JaneB]

Jane,

Thank you so much for checking out the chapter. You have a very sharp eye. I'll make all these changes you suggest.

In your 6th bullet, you suggest using some questions to elaborate on the suspicious corrective actions. Can you think of an example of what you're talking about? I like the concept, but I can't seem to implement it. If you throw me a quick example I can probably pick up the ball and run with it.

Talk to you soon,
Craig

You're very welcome Craig, glad it was useful.

Re. the questions, I think you already have them - I was more referring to format/how presented. Eg, instead of this:

Revise procedures
This is another very popular corrective action. It implies that we’re actually making improvements, but we have little more than implications. When I see this solution being offered, I feel a strong need to dig a little deeper. What exactly about the procedure is being revised? Have the responsibilities, tools, or sequence of tasks changed? Simply revising a procedure is an administrative process, not an improvement.
When faced with a promise to revise procedures, you need to start asking
questions. Find out what is being changed. More likely than not, this was just a quick way to respond to a request for action. “Hey, we’ll revise our procedures. Now leave is alone!” There’s a strong chance that you will need to offer some facilitation in corrective action.

I'm suggesting something like this instead:

Revise procedures
This is another very popular corrective action. It implies that we’re actually making improvements, but we have little more than implications. Simply revising a procedure is an administrative process, not an improvement. When I see this solution being offered, I feel a strong need to dig a little deeper.
Questions to ask:

• Is this really just a quick way to respond to a request for action? “Hey, we’ll revise our procedures. Now leave us alone!” (happens more likely than not).
• Is anything really being changed?
• If yes, what?
• Have any responsibilities, tools, or sequence of tasks changed?
• If no, why would this so-called 'CA' be effective?

I think those are the kinds of questions that experienced people start to ask almost 'automatically' (experts often think what they do is 'automatic' or 'intuitive'), but the less experienced don't or may not even think of them. Thus worth highlighting.

BTW - I've got an idea for a fun article which I'll ask for feedback on when I get it done. So your turn will come.

 

[ccochran]

Jane,

Your advice is excellent, as always. I can't wait to see that article you mentioned!

Craig