Certainties & Serendipities

“A prudent question is one-half of wisdom,” said the father of empiricism, Francis Bacon. A prudent question in problem solving is not the usually asked questions : how to solve or how fast it can be solved. Rather it is the basic question of what the problem is.

Problem, by definition, is a deviation from a stated objective, goal or purpose. Whenever you are called to solve a problem, your first question should be, ‘So what is the problem?’ and the answers should lead you to the objective that the situation – project or software program – was suppose to achieve. It goes without saying that the question and answer session should be iterative to nail the root cause of the problem. Causes commonly fall into a pattern:

Most problems are problems of purpose. Lack of purpose, ill-defined purpose, ill-communicated purpose or such a variant are the major causes of organizational disorders. You will expect that million-dollar projects are managed with a clear purpose. Far from it. May be they were started with a grand vision. With the passage of time the objectives of the project are no more clear to stakeholders.

Then there is problem of perception. What sales team perceives as a great opportunity is usually perceived by operations team as a risky adventure which may ruin the good work they have done so far. Seldom these two groups reconcile; and when they stand firmly on the opposite sides of the opinion-spectrum you got a problem.

What the IT industry suffers is the third kind of problem and that is, problem of competence. No, it is not the competence of technology skills. Proven technologists are either promoted by organizations or they themselves race to managerial levels where they prove highly incompetent, which in turn creates all sorts of management problems.
Even when skilled members work along side in a clearly defined project, their efforts can be sabotaged by politics between the executives. “When the elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers,” goes one African proverb. The wisdom of the proverb is visible in organizations across the globe.

Why is it important to identify the precise problem? It might appear a foolish question. But often organizations and consultants start out on the path to resolution without a precise understanding of the problem. Without identification of the correct problem, the proposed solution will be a misfit which will open another Pandora’s box.

This post is part of ‘Be a Problem Solver‘ series.

Drawing on his own years in McKinsey as well as extensive interviews with current and former McKinsey-ites, the author takes us through the proven approaches used in McKinsey for solving business problems.

Through out the book, the author emphasizes the rigorous training of Mckinsey-ites to be structured in every aspect of their approach to finding solutions to business problems – be it thinking or working or selling of solutions.

Also there is a magic number of three in every approach. As the author notes, everything comes in three in the firm (how he calls McKinsey). This again is a form of bringing structure into every dealing.

I have drawn a map of the (relevant) concepts mentioned in the book on problem solving.

Concept Map of the book 'The McKinsey Way'

Thinking about business problems
When you start with problem solving, gather as many facts as possible. Most consultants are generalists, even the experienced ones. For such generalists, facts compensate for the gut instincts. Further facts give credibility when dealing with the stakeholders.

When gathering issues that cause the problem, be exhaustive but avoid overlaps (what McKinsey calls mutually exclusive and completely exhaustive).

With the facts and MECE issues, generate your initial hypothesis. Never be afraid to frame a hypothesis. And then test your initial hypothesis. How do you test? Brainstorming. That is why problem solving should not be a solo venture. You need others to pick apart your ideas. Later in the book the author also warn never to invest your ego with your hypothesis. After all it is a hypothesis.

Working to solve business problems
On a day-to-day basis the problem solving model includes research, interviews and brainstorming. You should browse trade magazines and annual reports of the client. They give you the idea of jargons, best practices and current issues the particular industry faces.

Magazines and reports can give generic informations but the specifics of the problems are in the heads of front-line people. Listening to their experience and anecdotes provide essential insights into the problem. So go talk to them.

Update every one of the issues, results of research and interview and let them form their own hypothesis. But the real work of problem solving starts only with brainstorming. Pick apart everyone’s hypothesis to arrive at a solution.

Selling the solution
The best solution, no matter how well researched, analyzed and solved, is worthless if your client don’t buy it. If they have to buy it you have to sell it. One of the components of that selling is a well structured presentation. But real selling doesn’t happen during the presentation. It happens well before everyone gather for the presentation. You should walk the audience through the major points beforehand.

Communication is the lifeline of a team-based operation. Internal communication as well as with those with client’s team should be short, thorough and structured.

Client’s team play a crucial role in any engagement and hence it is important to keep the client’s team on your side. Know that there will be politics and ensure politics favors you.

The key takeaway from the book is that there should be structure in your thinking, analysis and communication for effective problem solving.

This post is part of ‘Be a Problem Solver‘ series.

When I started learning ‘Event Based Programming‘, I had to unlearn the techniques of traditional sequential programming. I couldn’t learn event based programming with the mindset of sequential programming. That was my first explicit unlearning experience.

Learning is expensive and time consuming. But many learning is within a context of business, society, and technology. When these context changes, that learning should be unlearnt too (and new ones should be learnt). Even when the context changes, we continue to hold on to what we learnt.

Take for instance, women’s place in Indian societies. Indian women have gone to space, ruled (and ruling) the country, head companies but still Indian families don’t unlearn their traditions of ‘girls should stay home and be subjected to men.’

Or take the obsession of the developed nations with protectionism. They are still entrenched with ‘west supremacy’ that they learnt ages ago. When will they unlearn it?

Or the teaching of the gurus of process and frameworks. They continue to teach that by establishing processes, people can be replaced easily. When will they unlearn ‘people can be replaced’ and learn ‘processes can be replaced; but not people.’

When we learn something and seen it working, we can be attached to it long after it is useful. We need to constantly evaluate and validate what we learnt about us, business, society, nation and universe as a whole. If any of our past learning is no more relevant, we should be willing to unlearn.

Visa founder Dee Hock said it best: “The problem is never how to get new, innovative thoughts into your mind, but how to get the old ones out.”

Are you struggling to get the old ideas out?

Happy Independence Day!

When Indians get frustrated with the corrupt government system, lucky ones migrate to the West, unlucky ones resign to their fates, courageous ones attempt at least a delta change, and the rich produce Bolloywood movies. But the CEO of FabIndia, William Nanda Bissell, has written a book.

In his book, Making India Work, Bissell is both diagnostic and prescriptive. His diagnosis comes from years of interaction with government officials as well as citizens of all classes. In his diagnoses, the current state of India is:

Making India Work

1) a large government with its citizens perceived as inherently criminals and dissidents;
2) a bureaucracy full of corrupt and incompetent officials;
3) where productive effort is heavily taxed and tax-payer’s money squandered in inefficient developmental programs;
4) where abstract rights exists in letters with no tangible claim on any of the ideals; and
5) where crony and phoney capitalism thrives.

He identifies poverty, extremism and lack of entrepreneurism (because “the minimum return left after taxes would not justify the effort and headaches in running a business”) as side-effects of the above root causes. He warns that if India continues in this path of profound mismanagement, deterioration as that of Zimbabwe is inevitable.

His diagnosis is pragmatic but his prescription is intellectual. His prescriptions are influenced by the Federalist Papers, Bruce F. Johnston and Peter Kilby’s Agricultural and Structural Transformation, James Scott’s The Moral Economy of the Peasant, Hernando de Soto’s The Mystery of Capital, and Saving Capitalism From the Capitalists by Raghuram Rajan (currently economic advisor to PM) and Luigi Zingales.

The framework he proposes is built around three principles:
1) Fair markets;
2) Right Sizing of the government; and
3) Operational Transparency.

He then goes on to elaborate these principles and in so doing proposes reformation of every branch of Indian administration. They include, among others, abolition of post of president and governor; restricting government to be an umpire and not a player. He admits that such extensive reform is possible only with rewriting of Indian constitution and to do so, bureaucrats, politicians and president have to “bite the hand that feeds them”.

Bissell’s flawless diagnosis and well thought-out prescriptions should be commended. But I don’t agree with him on approach and method of his prescriptions.

It is common to attempt change through processes and frameworks. Because change-agents believe such high-level changes bring benefits to their constituents. But I have witnessed many change programs fail when approached with this mindset. It should be noted that change, however noble, can not be forced from top; it should come from within. To rephrase president Obama’s words to Indian context, real results will not come from Delhi – they will come from the people.

Secondly such a revolutionary change, when it comes, will not come through peaceful way of winning electoral mandate. In India, freedom from colonial oppressors was largely bloodless. But freedom from post-colonial oppressive government system will not be bloodless.

Despite these differences, the book is an inspiring read. Give it a read.