CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

Creative Problem Solving is a proven method for approaching a problem or a challenge in an imaginative and innovative way. It’s a tool that helps people re-define the problems they face, come up with breakthrough ideas and then take action on these new ideas. Alex Osborn and Sidney Parnes conducted extensive research on the steps that are involved when people solve problems, the result of which is the following 6 steps that are broken down into 3 stages:

At the same time that CPS is a structured process, it’s also a very flexible one. When you begin to use and internalize the CPS process, you find that it’s cyclical. You begin to see how to move from step to step, and how to jump back and forth between steps. When CPS becomes part of your own way of thinking and working, you can use one step at a time, as you need it, when you need it. Once you understand the fundamentals of CPS, you can adapt this process to every situation you encounter, thereby realizing its power. One of the finest ways to learn about CPS, is through a real life example .In our class we were asked to solve a puzzle of taking the ring out of a toy.

Objective Finding - Identify Goal, Wish or Challenge  

This could be a wish or a goal. It might be the initial dissatisfaction or a desire that opens the door to using the CPS process. In our case the most important first step towards solving the puzzle was the clear and concise layout of the goal. Which was to take the ring out of the toy. In organizations any goal cannot be achieved without a proper layout of the organisation’s  goals. As discussed in the goal setting blog, the goals to be achieved have to be SMART.

Fact Finding - Gather Data

Assess and review all the data that pertains to the  situation at hand. Who’s involved, what’s involved, when, where, and why it’s important. Make a list of the facts and information, as well as the more visceral hunches, feelings, perceptions, assumptions and gossip around the situation. In this step, all the data is taken into consideration to review the objective and begin to innovate. In the case of the toy, in order to solve the problem we need to fully understand all its aspects before solving it. In this case the aim of our group is to understand that the toy is of the racket shape and it has a vertical slit. Apart from this it also has 2 square pieces  and 2 balls suspended by threads. This data is critical to handle the problem successfully.

Problem Finding - Clarify the Problem

In this step, explore the facts and data to find all the problems and challenges inherent in the situation, and all the opportunities they represent. This is about making sure you’re focusing on the right problem. It is possible to come up with the right answer to the wrong problem. Re-define what you want or what’s stopping you. In the case of the toy we have to clearly understand as to what is stopping us from finding the solution to the problem. The challenged to the taking out of the ring from the toy have to be clearly defined before progressing further. Here the challenge was that the ring was repeatedly getting stuck in the two square blocks .that was the main challenge.

Idea Finding - Generate Ideas

Generating ideas is much more than brainstorming. During this step, be vigilant about deferring judgment and coming up with wild, outrageous, out-of-the-box ideas. This is where you explore ideas that are possible solutions and have the most fun. It’s also where you need to stretch to make connections, take risks, and try new combinations to find potentially innovative solutions. The toy problem needs us to generate various possible combination of positions through which the problem can be solved. In organisatons too we have to understand that any problem requires every stakeholder to brainstorm and come up with out of the box ideas. Be it apple, or 3m , uncommon problems necceciate an uncommon solution.

Solution Finding – Select and Strengthen Solutions

First, try to strengthen and improve the best ideas generated. Next, generate the criteria that needs to be considered to evaluate the ideas for success. Apply that criteria to the top ideas and decide which are most likely to solve the redefined problem. The best idea needs to meet criteria that makes it actionable before it becomes the solution. A creative idea is not really useful if it won’t be implemented. In the case of the toy problem we came up with innovative solutions  and listed out a few ideas which are the most likely to solve the problem. It is at this stage that our decision making comes into the picture wherein we have to choose the best possible strategy to take the ring out of the toy. In organizations to it is imperative that the only those solutions are put into practice which give the maximum chance of success. The best possible strategy will then have to be put into action.

Acceptance Finding – Plan for Action

In this step, look at who’s responsible, what has to be done by when, and what resources are available in order to realize this idea as a full-fledged, activated solution. It is this stage when we really execute the plans to take the ring out of the toy. Based on the strategy decided in the previous method , we take out the ring out of the toy. We have to remember that an organization may have grand plans , but if they are not executed properly, they will not be of any use to the fulfillment of the organizations purpose.

Therefore the toy exercise proved to be a quintessential way to understand the nuisance of CPS, and get a better idea of its application in the real world . 

 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

Introduction

Any operating organization should have its own structure in order to operate efficiently. For an organization, the organizational structure is a hierarchy of people and its functions.
The organizational structure of an organization tells you the character of an organization and the values it believes in. Therefore, when you do business with an organization or getting into a new job in an organization, it is always a great idea to get to know and understand their organizational structure.
Depending on the organizational values and the nature of the business, organizations tend to adopt one of the following structures for management purposes.
Although the organization follows a particular structure, there can be departments and teams following some other organizational structure in exceptional cases.
Sometimes, some organizations may follow a combination of the following organizational structures as well.

Organizational Structure Types

Following are the types of organizational structures that can be observed in the modern business organizations.

Pre-bureaucratic structures

This type of organizations lacks the standards. Usually this type of structures can be observed in small scale, start-up companies. Usually the structure is centralized and there is only one key decision maker.
The communication is done in one-on-one conversations. This type of structures is quite helpful for small organizations due to the fact that the founder has the full control over all the decisions and operations.

Bureaucratic structures

These structures have a certain degree of standardization. When the organizations grow complex and large, bureaucratic structures are required for management. These structures are quite suitable for tall organizations.
Post-bureaucratic structures
The organizations that follow post- bureaucratic structures still inherit the strict hierarchies, but open to more modern ideas and methodologies. They follow techniques such as total quality management (TQM), culture management etc.

Functional Structure

The organization is divided into segments based on the functions when managing. This allows the organization to enhance the efficiencies of these functional groups. As an example, take a software company.
Software engineers will only staff the entire software development department. This way, management of this functional group becomes easy and effective.
Functional structures appear to be successful in large organization that produces high volumes of products at low costs. The low cost can be achieved by such companies due to the efficiencies within functional groups.
In addition to such advantages, there can be disadvantage from an organizational perspective if the communication between the functional groups is not effective. In this case, organization may find it difficult to achieve some organizational objectives at the end.

Divisional Structure

These types of organizations divide the functional areas of the organization to divisions. Each division is quipped with its own resources in order to function independently. There can be many bases to define divisions.
divisions can be defined based on the geographical basis, products / services basis, or any other measurement.
As an example, take a company such as General Electrics. It can have microwave division, turbine division, etc., and these divisions have their own marketing teams, finance teams etc. In that sense, each division can be considered as a micro-company with the main organization.

Matrix Structure

When it comes to matrix structure, the organization places the employees based on the function and the product.
The matrix structure gives the best of the both worlds of functional and divisional structures.
In this type of an organization, the company uses teams to complete tasks. The teams are formed based on the functions they belong to (ex: software engineers) and product they involved in (ex: Project A).
This way, there are many teams in this organization such as software engineers of project A, software engineers of project B, QA engineers of project A, etc.

Conclusion

Every organization needs a structure in order to operate systematically. The organizational structures can be used by any organization if the structure fits into the nature and the maturity of the organization.
In most cases, organizations evolve through structures when they progress through and enhance their processes and manpower. One company may start as a pre-bureaucratic company and may evolve up to a matrix organization.
finally a video to capture the essence of it all

POM EXAM

My first ever POM exam:

Shaky legs, sweaty palms, nervous disposition……..no they were certainly not me on my very first POM exam day. For it was a very different day. I my life of 26 years I have appeared in many exams , but this one was quite different from the rest. This was an exam in which I hardly studied anything from  the  book, yet I was confident. This was a brand new teaching methodology which was being put to use, LEARNING THROUGH BLOGS is the new buzzword in NITIE.

 This is a new initiative by our professor Dr. T Prasad aka Dr. Mandi. This new methodology forced us to rethink our basic foundations of rote learning. It forced us to be creative and innovative. This aspect showed in the exam too, we as students were writing answers , not from the books, but from the engaging discussions we had inside the classroom as well as the brainstorming we have to do in our blogs. In my opinion exams are a means of testing knowledge as well as a rigorous test of our managing skills too, be it time management, pressure handling, of a test of knowledge, exams push us to our limits. 

The conflict between the ways of managing

Theory X and Theory Y

Organisations consist of employees and managers. The theory delves on the attitude and outlook of managers - the direction and growth of the organisation is in the hands of managers and it is solely their way of managing things which leads to proper motivation of the employees and in the process, achieve growth in the organisation.It is important to note here that Theory X and Theory Y looks into managerial psychology and their way of planning and running the organisation. Thus, it focuses on the class of managers and their behavioral attributes and attitude.

What does a theory X manager do?

His Theory of Motivation states that there is a certain class of mangers who fall in the bracket of Theory X. In this theory management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can. Because of this, workers need to be closely supervised and comprehensive systems of control put in place. A hierarchical structure is needed, with narrow span of control at each level, for effective management. According to this theory employees will show little ambition without an enticing incentive program and will avoid responsibility whenever they can.

The managers influenced by Theory X believe that everything must end in blaming someone. They think most employees are only out for themselves and their sole interest in the job is to earn money. They tend to blame employees in most situations, without questioning the systems, policy, or lack of training which could be the real cause of failures. This type of management philosophy is generally found in conventional organizations.

What does a theory Y manager do?

Management influenced by this theory assumes that employees are ambitious, self-motivated, anxious to accept greater responsibility and exercise self-control, self-direction, autonomy and empowerment. Management believes that employees enjoy their work. They also believe that, given a chance, employees have the desire to be creative at their work place and become forward looking. There is a chance for greater productivity by giving employees the freedom to perform to the best of their abilities, without being bogged down by rules.

A Theory Y manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work and that there is a pool of unused creativity in the workforce. They believe that the satisfaction of doing a good job is a strong motivation in itself. A Theory Y manager will try to remove the barriers that prevent workers from fully actualizing themselves.

The following diagram gives a clear explanation about Theory X and Theory Y managers:

Now we further discuss the role of such managers and the effect on employees through the following four cases. As and where possible, examples from my experience of working under such managers has been highlighted.

    Employee is not interested in his work and manager assumes he is lazy

This kind of a situation is seen in many organisations where lack of clear directive principles and ineffective goal setting leads to disillusionment and non-motivation among the employees to perform better. During my working days, while working in various committees as junior members, I often found seniors at the leadership didn't care much about us or the betterment of the club as a whole. Gradually, we assumed a stance where we also didn't work or care much and slowly started disliking working in it. They assumed we were lazy and went about it in that manner. This is a classic case of Theory X Managers where both the management and employees assume that the top rung will be giving orders to the lower rungs and they will follow the same.
  Employee likes his work and yet the manager assumes he is lazy
This is probably the most dangerous out of all the four possible situations where the employee likes his work and finds himself highly motivated from within to work and contribute, however the manager still assumes he is lazy and thus is greatly harmful to the motivational growth of the employee and the organisation as a whole.  I had the (mis)fortune of having such a manager during my initial days at my workplace. The team members would work extra hard to achieve already stringent deadlines and produce quality work, often doing value addition on their own and inspiring each other to work harder and stay focused. However, our manager still assumed we were a group of lazy employees and would constantly point out minor issues, without focusing on the larger picture of employee's performance. Even with whole-hearted contributions, the team was deemed to be performing below par and not meeting objectives. Such managers can be detrimental to the success of the organisation as often, good employees might leave the organisation to other rival companies, leading to further attrition.
here is short video i found on the internet:

  Employee dislikes his work and manager assumes he is not lazy

In this case, even though employees dislike their work, there is a strong focus from management to think they  can do better and perform much more to aid the organisation. Immense morale boosting attitude, a definite belief that employees will perform better given more optimistic managers at the helm, performance based incentives at all levels are some of the means of getting the employees up to speed. This kind of a workplace is where the Theory Y managers exhibit their true mettle and where the attitude they adopt crucially shapes the future of the organisation.

  Employee likes his work and manager assumes he is not lazy

This is the most ideal case where the employee is focused and likes his work and performs it to the fullest extent. This is achieved as a result of hardworking employees working in an environment of synergy with the management who leave no stones unturned to motivate them through their positive attitude. I had the fortune of being under such a manager during my last days at the workplace. He would focus greatly on the employee's performance on a weekly basis. If there ever came any reasons which could demotivate the employees, he would take it up on an immediate basis and have it solved as soon as possible. An ever-supportive person for the employees, especially in front of the senior management during appraisal times, he had succeeded in bringing harmony in a team which had initially lost all faith in the management due to prior incidents. He would take time out from his personal schedule to interact on a person-to-person basis with us, understand each person's problems and offer solutions and his own help to sort them out so that the employee didn't go home disgruntled. It showed in our work as we too started to scale up and exceed the goals set in front of us, thus leading to excellence of the organisation. Such Theory Y managers make great organisations greater.

In a diverse world of different organisations with different philosophies, I believe that managers should try to become Theory Y managers in situation IV as this leads to successful growth of all stakeholders involved. Even in the case where such a situation becomes hypothetical, I feel that Theory X managers shown in situation II above are the worst managers as the negative vibe they give out harms all the parties.However we must not forget