NEW VISION INTO PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS THROUGH REENGINEERING THE DECISIONS

Tanja Pentcheva Panajotova

Technical University - Varna, 1 “Studentska” str., 9010, Varna, Bulgaria

department " Economics and management", tagea@abv.bg

Abstract. The basic idea of this publication is giving a new meaning and reprojecting in the way in which the things are done and the problems are solved. Тhis is a provocation into improving the productivity in all areas. The pressure for cost and lead time decrease, quality increasing and generally the productiveness of the work place increase is multiplied intensively. Problems are a constant part of the business and their decision is a research work. This research presents the reengineering as a basic tool in the problem solving process.

Key words: purpose, situation, problem, cause, correctible cause, issue, decision, reengineering of the problem solving process.

I. Introduction

To make an engineering and reengineering the problem solving process is to rethink, to redefine, to redesign, to radically change the way work gets done. Davenport & Short, 1990 [3]; Hammer, 1990 [10]; Hammer & Champy, 1993 [11] make a deep analysis in this area. Often, this means starting from the beginning and it is also a provocation, specify vision and supposition. Although reengineering efforts are typically focused on large-scale business processes such as purchasing, business acquisition, and product development, they can be successfully turned to the workplace and problem solving.

ІІ. Exposition

1. Definition of problem

Without problem there is no need of solution. Most often the problems are at hand, when there is a diversion between the preliminarily goals of management and the real situation. Often this stage is ignored and it is considered formal. For example, manufacturing managers are usually evaluated with line-operation rate, which is shown as a percentage of operated hours to potential total operation hours. The manufacturing managers sometimes operate lines without orders from their division. This operation may produce more than demand and make excessive inventories. The excessive inventories may be a problem for general managers, but for the manufacturing managers, the excessive inventories may not be a problem. If a purpose is different between managers, they see the identical situation in different ways. One may see a problem but the others may not see the problem. Therefore, in order to identify a problem, problem solvers such as consultants must clarify the differences of purposes and should start their problem solving projects from the definition of purposes and problems.

2. Terminology of problem solving

This report proposes seven terms such as: purpose, situation, problem, cause, solvable cause, issue, and solution. The knowledge of the basic terminology has a priority place in problem solving. (Figure1).

Figure 1. Problem Solving Terminology

Purpose. Purpose is in advance planned result of the conscious human action. Purpose is an easy term to understand. Without clear purposes, it is not possible to think about problems.

Situation. Situation is just what a circumstance is. Situation is neither good nor bad. It is necessary to recognize situations objectively as much as it is possible. Usually almost all situations are not problems. It is necessary to capture situations clearly before recognizing them as problems or non-problems. Without recognizing situations objectively, Problem Solving is likely to be narrow sighted, because problem solvers recognize problems with their prejudice.

Problem. Problem situation is described with a remoteness and tearing to pieces between the existent conditions and purpose, which is pursued. If the purpose isn’t enough clear, the need of management decision making will not be clear expressed. Problem is a part of situation, which can’t realize the purposes. If the purpose is different, the identical situation may be a problem or may not be a problem.

Cause. Cause is what brings about a problem. Some problem solvers do not distinguish causes from problems. But since problems are some portions of a situation, problems are more general than causes are. In other words causes are more specific facts, which bring about problems. Without distinguishing causes from problems, Problem Solving can not be specific. Finding specific facts which causes problems is the essential step in Problem Solving.

Solvable cause. Solvable cause is some portions of causes. When it is solved a problem, the attention should be focused on solvable causes. Finding solvable causes is another essential step in Problem Solving. If it is we tryed to solve unsolvable causes, it will waste time. Extracting solvable causes is a useful step to make problem solving efficient.

Issue. Issue is the opposite expression of a problem. If a problem is that we do not have money, the issue is that we get money. Sometimes the assertion "we do not have money" is identified as an issue. At the worst case, the both terms may be mixed. The problems should be negative expressions, and the issues - positive expressions.

Solution. Solution is a specific action to solve a problem, which is equal to a specific action to realize an issue. Issues are not solutions.

3. Thinking patterns

In the theory are known these fourteen patterns into three more general groups such as thinking patterns for judgements, thinking patterns for thinking processes and thinking patterns for efficient thinking.

3.1. Thinking patterns for judgements

In order to create a value through thinking it is necessary to judge whether it is right or wrong. There are four judging patterns such as strategic thinking, emotional thinking, realistic thinking, and empirical thinking.

Strategic thinking. Focus, or bias, is the criterion for strategic thinking. The strategic thinking is connected with the strategic processes. It may be described with the following characteristics: variability, multidisciplinary, time order thinking, analysis and synthesis, thinking concentrating on the main purpose, reverse iteration, risky thinking. Historically, many strategists such as Sonfucis in ancient China, Naplon, M. Porter proposed strategic thinking when they develop strategies.

Emotional thinking. In organizations, an emotional aspect is essential. Tactical leaders judge whether a situation is right or wrong based on the participants’ emotional commitment. It is accepted that if participants can be positive to a situation, the situation is right.

Realistic thinking. Thinking is based on the logical lows and cause and effect relations. It is connecting with search for information, assessment of the positive and negative consequences, new ideas perspectives of progress and realization. The advantage of realistic thinking is that it allows considering the problems from different points of view. The realistic thinking has two criterions – determination what it can be done and fixing the core of the problem. The beginning is very important even if this, which is done, is something quite small. To begin is the better choice rather than not to begin in the sense of realistic thinking. Next it must search for key factors, in order to make the problem solving more efficient.

Empirical thinking

When it is used empirical thinking, it is judged whether the situation is right or wrong based on our past experiences. Sometimes, this thinking pattern persists on the past criteria too much, even if a situation has changed. Further, if it is on hand the experience of the identical situation before, it can be utilized the experience as a reliable knowledge data base.

3.2. Thinking patterns for thinking processes

If it can be thought systematically, there isn’t frustrate in expectations. In contrast, if it doesn’t use systematic method, problem solving can be frustrated. There are several systematic thinking processes such as: rational thinking, systems thinking, cause & effect thinking, contingent thinking, and the Toyota’s five times WHYs method.

Rational thinking. Rational thinking is one of the most common Problem Solving methods. It consists of the following sequence:

1. Set the ideal situation

2. Identify a current situation

3. Compare the ideal situation and the current situation, and identify the problem situation

4. Break down the problem to its causes

5. Conceive the solution alternatives to the causes

6. Evaluate and choose the reasonable solution alternatives

7. Implement the solutions

The rational thinking can use as a Problem Solving method for almost all problems.

Systems thinking. Systems thinking is a more scientific Problem Solving approach than the rational thinking approach. It is considered the system, which causes problems and this system is analyzed on the base of systems functions. The system is built of: purpose, input, output, function, inside cause (solvable cause); outside cause (unsolvable cause); result.

In order to realize purpose, it is prepared input and through function it can get output. But output does not necessarily realize purpose. Result of the function may be different from purpose. This difference is created by outside cause and inside cause. The outside cause can’t be solved but the inside cause can be solved. Systems thinking is a very clear and useful method to solve problems (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Systems thinking.

Cause & effect thinking. Traditionally, the ambition is to clarify cause and effect relations. Usually it is thought about finding causes as solving problems. Finding a cause and effect relation is a conventional basic problem solving method.

Contingent thinking. Game theory is a typical contingent thinking method. If it is thought about as many situations as possible, which may happen, and prepare solutions for each situation, this process is a contingent thinking approach.

Toyota’s five times WHYs. At Toyota, employees are taught to think WHY consecutively five times. This is an adaptation of cause and effect thinking. If employees think WHY and find a cause, they try to ask themselves WHY again. They continue five times. Through these five WHYS, they can break down causes into a very specific level. This five times WHYs approach is very useful to solve problems.

3.3. Thinking patterns for efficient thinking

In order to think efficiently, there are several useful thinking patterns such as: hypothesis thinking, conception thinking, structure thinking, convergence & divergence thinking, and time order thinking.

Hypothesis thinking. If it canst be possible to collect all information quickly and easily, the specialists can solve problems very efficiently. But actually, it isn’t possible to collect every information, because it need a long time. Hypothesis thinking does not require collecting all information. The hypothesis is developed on the base on available information. After it is necessary to collect minimum information to prove the hypothesis. If the first hypothesis is right, it is not necessary to collect any more information. If the first hypothesis is wrong, it will be developed the next hypothesis based on available information. Hypothesis thinking is a very efficient problem-solving method, because it doesn’t required to waste time to collect unnecessary information.

Conception thinking. Problem solving is not necessarily logical or rational. Creativity and flexibility are other important aspects for problem solving. These aspects can’t be recognized clearly. It is recommended to do the following:

· The things to be visual.

· To write down thinks.

· To use cards to draw, write and arrange ideas in many ways.

· To change positions, forms, and viewpoints, physically and mentally.

Structure thinking. If it is made a structure like a tree to grasp a complex situation can be understand very clearly. Upper level should be more abstract and lower level should be more concrete. Dividing abstract situations from concrete situations is helpful to clarify the complex situations. A clear recognition of a complex situation increases efficiency of problem solving.

Convergence & divergence thinking. From creative point of view it hasn’t to consider convergence of ideas. In contrast, it has to summarize ideas and must focus on convergence. If it isn’t done convergence and divergence simultaneously, problem solving becomes inefficient.

Time order thinking. Thinking based on a time order is very convenient, when there are confusion with problem solving. It canst be thinking based on a time order from the past to the future and make a complex situation clear.

4. Problem solving: the core competency, the core process

Owing in large part to the shift to knowledge work, the nature of the "contract" between the individual and the organization has shifted from one of security in exchange for compliance to one of compensation in return for contribution (P. Drucker [6]). Instead of carrying out simple, highly specialized and repetitive routines, the work of many people now requires of them that they figure out what to do. Figuring out what to do if there is a problem is known as problem solving. The problem solving process underlies all deliberate, goal-oriented behavior. It is the core competency for all human beings, and the core process for all organizations.

4.1. Reengineering the Problem Solving Process

Many commonly accepted notions about the proper way to solve problems are of questionable value in today's world. Ordinary experience informs us that the search is always for a solution to a problem and only sometimes for its cause. Rather than follow a narrowly defined sequential procedure, the search for solutions should proceed along many fronts at once, taking advantage of the available information and working on what can be worked on at the time. Often problem solving is seen as an attempt to fix what has gone wrong. Fixing what has gone wrong is only one approach to problem solving, of value primarily in a world where things can be put back the way they were. Often situations can arise in which the result of one problem solving creates one or more new problems. Solution like these Chester Barnard (1938) [2] called inefficient. The inefficient solution creates new problems.

Of the first importance for problem solving in organizational environment is the change of situation and the individuals work in self-manageable teams. Another factor, connected with problem solving is the change in teams. Complex problems call for complex solutions, and complex solutions generally require a multidisciplinary approach (J. Ruesch, 1975 [15]). The concentration of organizational problem solving efforts has shifted to cross-functional teams are directed to the reengineering. The shift in the locus of organizational problem solving efforts also suggests a future where team training in problem solving methods is coupled with training in the dynamics of small work groups, much like is currently found in the startup stages of a Total Quality Management (TQM) program.

4.2. Problem solving as a search activity

Problem solving is an information-based search activity. The path that leads from the problem state to the solved state, is known as the solution path (Figure 4). The term "solution path" is also used at times to refer to the sequence of events whereby a solution is arrived. Problem solving viewed as a search activity suggests two questions: “Search where?” and “Search for what?”. “Search where?” is always the same: in the structure of the problem, in a conceptual area known as the search space which is in turn a subset of a larger conceptual area known as the problem space. These "spaces" consider in details by A. Newell and H. Simon, 1972 in [13] are not spaces at all in the physical sense; instead, they are mental representations of reality, models of the way things work. “Search for what?” depends on the problem at hand. Sometimes, it is necessary to search for the cause of the problem, sometimes not. But in all cases it is necessary to search for a solution.

Figure 3: The solution path.

The first factor to consider in reengineering the problem solving process is that the process should be solution-centered, not problem-centered. The goal in solving a problem is the solved state and the search is for a solution, a course of action that leads to the solved state. In reengineering parlance, this recentering of the problem solving process on the solved state and the course of action can be tricked and it is possible to drive to falling of "organizing around outcomes."

It is possible to search for the solution path for a given problem in one of three ways: work forward from the problem state, work backward from the solved state, or to hope for a blinding flash of insight. Insight is wonderful when it happens but it is notoriously unreliable. Therefore, for the most part, problem solving in an organizational setting is best approached as a rational, purposeful, structured, and systematic information-based search activity.

4.3. Covering the bases

The search for a solution or a solution path is information-based. The key to an effective, efficient search for the solution path for a given problem lies in knowing when to emphasize which of the bases shown in Figure 4. Some decisions that are helpful in deciding when to focus on which base or set of bases are shown in algorithmic or flowchart form in Figure 5. The object is to streamline these searches so as to find better solutions faster.

Figure 4. The problem solving "Bases"

Figure 5. The logic for covering the Bases

4. 4. Building support and putting together a Plan

Just because it is known what to change and how to change it, or it is thought to do, it doesn't mean that the problem is solved. Nor does it mean that the course of settled actions will be implemented. Organizations are complex entities, push them here and they bulge over there. Power, politics, performance, and people are intertwined. Businesses must be managed, organizations must be governed. Unintended consequences abound. Opposition springs from wholly unexpected sources. Change is indirect. Effects are often far removed in space and time from the actions that give rise to them. Once the solution path is finded it must work for the solution itself. It must be prepared to show how the resources consumed in solving the problem are better spent there than elsewhere. Building consensus and support might require to reconcile conflicts between the way in which the things must be done (the solution) and the constraints and restraints. It is necessary to have plans and schedules.

4. 5. Figuring the way of making things

For implementation of the bases it must identifying methods and techniques. It must also settle on a particular course of action, which might require reconciling restraints and constraints and it must lay out a plan. A solution is typically a complex course of action, not a simple act. There are many changes to be made, not just one, and several means to consider. This implies choices to be made, criteria to govern the making of them, and care to be exercised in altering key relationships. These factors come into play in configuring the course of action you believe will lead to the solved state.

Depending on how the problem came about, there are two very different ways of identifying these change targets and change goals. One of these is the troubleshooting. "Troubleshooting" is concerned with figuring out what has gone wrong in an existing system. Troubleshooting, as indicated earlier, typically ap-plies when something changes, causing previously acceptable results or conditions to become unacceptable. "Solution engineering" centers on figuring out how to achieve a specified result, whether or not an existing system is in place.

If things were okay before and they're not now, then something has gone wrong, something in the situation changed. This unwanted or unanticipated change may be thought of as the cause of the problem as C. Kepner and B. Tregoe emphasized in 1965 in [12]. The obvious thing to do is find it and fix it. When it is looking for the cause of the problem, the aim is to fix it. Identifying the unwanted change isn't always an easy matter. Even so, the result might not be successful. Even to find the cause, it must find something that can't be fixed. Not everything can be put back the way it was. The search for a cause doesn't always lead to a solution.

4.6. Проектиране на решение

Not all causes can be found and not all causes that are found can be corrected. Designing or engineering a solution is a difficult but doable task. Basically, it's a matter of mapping the means-end relationships that define the structure of the situation in which the problem is embedded. Means-end maps enable precise, reliable identification of the three essential components of any solution:

1. The elements to be changed, that is, the change targets,

2. The ways in which they must be changed, and

3. The specific means to be used in changing them.

For an operational or production problem, a means-end map might take the form of a rather conventional flowchart or process diagram. For a financial problem, a means-end map might begin with a tree-chart view of a financial measure such as Return-on-Equity (see Figure 6). In turn, this could be linked to non-financial measures and from there tied to specific processes, functions, and operations. In this way, the organization's activities are connected to its bottom line. Working backward from the solved state is the preferred mode of operation for this approach.

Figure 6 – Return-on-Equity structure

Once it is specified the solved state and identify your change targets and change goals, it can move on to considerations of the means of making these changes, building support, planning, scheduling, and all the other intervention-related matters. Successfully linking design with intervention amounts to engineering a solution.

A problem exists when there is a discrepancy or gap between required and actual results, that gap has been targeted for closure, and there is uncertainty regarding how to close it. Discrepancies in results come about in several ways. First, is the ever-present possibility that things are going along just fine and then something goes wrong. In this case, the appropriate response is to find and fix the cause of the problem. What is required here is the engineering of a solution, the arrangement or rearrangement of elements in the structure of the situation in ways that will lead to the required results. The first measure of a good solution is that it gets implemented. Under normal circumstances, this criterion implies a fit with the constraints of the situation, plus buy-in, commitment, and support from those affected. On occasion, the requirements for buy-in and commitment can be ignored in favor of a top-down, mandated approach, one that can, if necessary, ride rough-shod over restraints and constraints. The second measure, by С. Barnard (1947) [1], may be thought of as solution efficiency.

The requirement for an effective, efficient search process implies some means of charting and representing the means-end relationships that define the structure of the situation in which the problem is embedded; in other words, some way of mapping or diagramming the problem space and its subset, the search space. An efficient search process also implies the minimum amount of effort required to solve the problem and that in turn implies a minimum amount of wasted effort.

ІІІ. Conclusions

If it is necessary to do something about a problem, no matter the kind of problem or how it came about, eventually it has to take action and has to change something. Change targets, change goals, and the means of making the specified changes, these are the key factors in figuring out what to do about a problem. In an organizational setting, the prospect of changing things also focuses attention on other people. Taking action in an organizational setting can be a very complex undertaking. It can require the efforts of more than one person, sometimes small teams, sometimes dozens or even hundreds of people. Moreover, for numerous reasons, taking action often requires consensus, support, and careful planning. There are restraints, things that can't do, and constraints, things that must do. Resources must be allocated, approvals obtained, schedules established, tasks assigned, commitments made, and assessments of results conducted. Considerable political skill is required.

References

1. Barnard, C. (1947). The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

2. Chester I. Barnard (1938). The Functions of The Executive. Harvard University Press: Cambridge

3. Davenport, T. & Short, J. (Summer 1990). "The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology and Business Process Redesign." Sloan Management Review. Massachusetts Insti-tute of Technology: Cambridge.

4. Davenport, T. (Fall 1993a). "Book Review: Reengineering the Corporation." Sloan Management Review. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge.

5. Davenport, T. (1993b). Process Innovation: Reengineering Work through Information Technology. Harvard Business School Press: Boston.

6. Drucker, P. (1968). The Age of Discontinuity. Harper & Row: New York.

7. Drucker, P. (1973). Management. Harper & Row: New York.

8. Drucker, P. (1992). Managing for the Future. Truman Talley Books/Dutton: New York.

9. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. HarperBusiness: New York.

10. Hammer, M. (July-August 1990). "Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate." Harvard Business Review. Harvard Uni-versity: Boston.

11. Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993). Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. HarperCollins: New York.

12. Kepner, C. & Tregoe, B. (1965). The Rational Manager. McGraw-Hill: New York.

13. Newell, A. & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Pren-tice-Hall: Englewood.

14. Nickols, F. (December, 1979). "Finding the Bottom-Line Payoff for Training." Training and Development. ASTD: Alexandria.

15. Ruesch, J. (1975). Knowledge in Action. Jason Aronson: New York.