The art of lean problem solving, part 1: orienting problem solving

Hi everyone. I'm Art Smalley, president of “Art of Lean”. Today, on behalf of the Lean Enterprise Institute, I want to present another short video to you. It's on the topic of problem solving and, more specifically, coaching for problem solving. I think this is a very important topic. So, if it interests you, stick around; I think you'll enjoy it.

Looking at the factors

To introduce this topic, I'll start with a question. Why does it take us so long to solve a given problem or improve a given situation? Well, it depends, doesn't it? Sometimes it takes us a few hours; other times, days or weeks; other times still, months. Larger transformations take even longer than that, but let's focus exclusively on the topic of specific problems and how they are solved. In that case, I think it depends; the answer isn't easy. I believe there are three internal factors that affect that time: the type, the scale and the complexity of the problem. There are also three external factors: the urgency to solve it, leadership and external noise.

These factors govern the equation I want to explain to you in this video. Before I continue, I want to say that my background is varied. It's quite diverse. I love talking about this subject, but as I go deeper, I can make many connections to different subjects. I love talking about Toyota's coaching practices because I speak, read and write Japanese. I also worked in Japan for a decade of my life. I've been an internal improvement director, an external change agent and a consultant working on the biggest and toughest situations. There are many interesting companies out there. I've worked at some small ones. I also worked in national laboratories for 15 years. I worked with distinguished scientists, addressing certain kinds of problems and our national laboratory system (real scientists, not the so-called “lean guys” out there who keep quoting science).

I've also talked a lot with people from the special forces community about the difference between generalists and specialists. In addition, I have a background in martial arts. As I said, my background is quite varied. I've also always had a very strong interest in training and sports, whether golf, American football or youth basketball. So I'm really interested in this topic and I see it from different angles, not just Toyota's, which may come as a surprise. Now, let's get back to why it takes so long to solve a problem. Well, the simple answer is: it depends. I think it depends on the three internal and external things I talked about (the external ones you can't really control, but they certainly affect you).

Tackling the problems

In my book “Four Types of Problems”, I say that I don't think there is a single solution for all kinds of problems. You can't apply the same pattern or methodology in every case. If you do, you'll get completely different results. Also, I think it depends on how difficult the problem is. I want to address some really difficult problems that Toyota solved that are worth commenting on. The experts involved in solving those problems didn't use the five whys, A3 reports, DMAIC or 8D. That's quite interesting. I'll also talk about skill and will. I think this goes back to management and organizational behavior, recognizing that there is situational leadership, things that come into play when you realize you can't deal with every team and every situation in the same way. If you do, you'll struggle and frustrate the team.

There are three factors that are outside the team's control: urgency, leadership and external noise (customers, suppliers, outsourced people…). Sometimes they can be an opposing force and slow you down. It all depends. I have a background in mathematics and, whenever I feel stuck, I try to put things into a mental model or a basic equation structure so I can think about it and start to realize that I'm probably missing some details. If I were to frame this as an equation, thinking about what the lead time to solve a problem would be, I would say that the dependent variable is a function of at least three factors: X, Y and Z.

X represents the type of problem, Y represents its level of complexity, and Z represents the skill levels needed to solve it. You still have those three external factors that also influence the equation: urgency, leadership and noise. All of them need to help. All the approaches to coaching I see in the lean community are interesting and they're not wrong. The problem, I believe, is that each approach manages to focus on only one side of the cube (mine included), so we need to have varied approaches, because the cube has six sides. You may have a favorite approach, but it won't work in every situation. We have easy, medium and difficult cases, but you can't treat them the same way with the same levels of skill and will. One size doesn't fit all. You need to handle them using different approaches, even with my simple X, Y and Z analogy.

On top of that, you still have leadership, urgency and noise. Coaching frameworks should take all of this into account at a minimum. I think there are more advanced cases where you need to think about other factors too, but, at a minimum, we have to start with these. This is where I'm dissatisfied with the current state. I don't think humble inquiry is a synonym for coaching. I don't think you can simply break the problem down into steps, key points and reasons and tell people what to do. That can happen after the problem has been solved, but not during. I also think there's a limit to using catchphrases from the martial arts. The ones being used in the lean community aren't wrong; they're well intentioned. However, they're often off on a strange tangent and don't even represent what really happens in the martial arts. They're certainly not scientific.

A matrix of possibilities

I believe we're talking about complex problems here, and I want to talk about that because, even in the simple cube analogy, you have more complexity than the cube suggests: you have a matrix inside it. It's not just the six sides. You have combinations, permutations and spaces within the cube. Using only my four types, three levels of complexity and four levels of skill and will, you'll already have far more than just six situations to think about. Then you'll still need to factor urgency, leadership and external noise into your equation. It gets complicated, but I think we can frame it. I think the point is that we need to create a framework and a better way of thinking about this matrix. That way, we can create better solutions and move beyond the one-size-fits-all approach or your preferred way of doing things.

This is where we are today and we're not doing well (at least in my opinion). That's why, in my next series of videos, I'm going to focus on this topic for probably a few months (between eight and ten videos on the subject) and lay out which variables and external factors I believe we at least need to consider. I'll use some outside examples, from beyond Toyota, and some from Toyota, talk about some complex things that don't use the five whys, A3 reports or the simple steps you've learned, and look at open frameworks that make us consider other points of view. Ultimately, my final goal is for people to develop better, more unified coaching theories or frameworks for what we do in the lean world of problem solving. I believe we're not there yet, and that frustrates me (I know many clients out there who come to me with questions and are also frustrated and confused by the current state of this topic). So let's see what we can do by thinking together and out loud to arrive at a better framework in the end.