a) project troubleshooting - tiger teams for reactive risk management

8/11/2019 A) Project Troubleshooting - Tiger Teams for Reactive Risk Management

1/11

Even the best project managers are forever fighting fires. In addition to

routine problems, they occasionally face unexpected disruptions that

may threaten the project and out-of-control crises that could threaten the

organization. Managers who have little explicit problem-solving training must

react to these events as best they can. Project troubleshooting provides a com-

prehensive toolkit that enables managers to react effectively to unexpected

disruptions.

Project troubleshooting is problem-solving applied to projects. Its core

performance engines are problem-solving and high-performance teamwork

(executed by so-called Tiger Teams). Managers are comfortable with problem-definition tools such as root-cause analysis. But definition is only the first part

of the problem-solving process. Understanding a problems causal factors

sometimes suggests a solution; sometimes, however, it does not.

Solution-finding is the second stage of the problem-solving process. It is

very dangerous to pick a solution, even one suggested by causal factors, with-

out first conducting a disciplined search. I have heard many project managers

say that they understand the cause of problems and believe nothing can be

done to resolve their problems. This statement, however, must be justified.

Case studies show that managers, when under-pressure, often fail to conduct

a disciplined search for solutions and opportunities; as a result, these solu-

tions and opportunities can pass-by unseen. Indeed, this paper presents the

project troubleshooting hypothesis: There is always something that can befound to improve the project situation.

Tiger Teams are the heart of the project troubleshooting toolkit. Tiger

Team productivity comes from deep, intense, productive conflictan open,

honest struggle to reconcile opposing views. Sequestered offsite and well-suit-

ed for creative problem-solving, Tiger Teams can quickly resolve problems.

While these high-performance teams are most rare, they can be deliberately

set up and nurtured. They are effective in handling both out-of-control crises

and routine everyday problem-solving.

Troubled projects are often viewed as the consequence of management

failure. A common solution is for organizations to employ expert program

managers to assess the program, take charge, and replace current management.

This paper presents an alternative view: Current management possesses the

PROJECTTROUBLESHOOTING: TIGER TEAMS FOR

REACTIVE

RISK

MANAGEMENT

ALEX PAVLAK, Thales Research, Inc., Severna Park, MD

ABSTRACT

Large long-term projects with many

stakeholders generally entail unforeseen

risks and events that cannot, in principle,

be predicted. Given the impracticality of

pre-planning for every possible contin-

gency, managers must react to inevitable

disruptions, respond to unexpected

events, update risk management plans,rescope the project, and problem-solve.

Contrary to these all-too-common project

occurrences, management continues to

view the project as a deterministic

process. The belief is that risk can be

anticipated and projects executed as

planned. The view presented in this

paper is that pragmatic project manage-

ment involves a practical balance

between proactive risk management

tools and reactive problem-solving tools.

Keywords: troubleshooting; risk manage-

ment; crisis management; problem-solv-

ing; teams; teamwork.

2004 bythe Project ManagementInstitute

Vol. 35, No. 4, 5-14, ISSN 8756-9728/03


2/11

ule and on-budget.

This size dependency is an impor-

tant observation. It suggests that large

projects are complex systems in the

complexity theory sense: Complex sys-

tems have an inherent level of unpre-

dictability. With large projects, this

unpredictability is the result of severalfactors: many stakeholders and the

potential for divergent interests; long

timescales; vulnerability to external

environmental changes; and many

internal interfaces that could potentially

result in unexpected technical surprises.

These numbers are consistent with

commercial capital projects. According

to Lovallo and Kahneman (2003) and

Flyvbjerg, Bruzilius, and Rothengatter

(2003), unfounded optimism, com-

bined with political pressures from

many stakeholders, results in a 10 per-

cent success rate and an average 28 per-

cent budget overrun.

Consider a chart documenting,

over time, the percentage of troubled

U.S. Navy research and development

(R&D) contracts. Thirty years ago,

defense contractors had sound proj-

ect management tools under the

rubric sys tems engineering manage-

ment. Over the past 30 years, howev-

er, these tools have been only

marginally improved and primarilyin regards to risk management tools,

quality tools, earned value manage-

ment, and computerization. As

Figure 2 shows, these improvements

may have reduced the average num-

ber of troubled projects, but improve-

ments seem insubstantial because 70

percent of programs are still trou-

bled. Over the next 30 years, we can

expect that efforts such as the accept-

basic skills, but needs special tools to

cope with unexpected events.

Total project management

involves a balance between traditional

proactive risk management and reac-

tive project troubleshooting. These two

complementary tasks have different

purposes, employ different tools, andrequire different skills. They are com-

patible, non-overlapping toolkits.

What is Project Troubleshooting?

Project troubleshooting is problem-

solving applied to projects. The project

troubleshooting toolkit consists of

those problem-solving heuristics (rules

of thumb) that are relevant to solving

project problems. Since project prob-

lems are highly multi-disciplinary,

project troubleshooting is executed

through high-performance teamwork

by the Tiger Teams.

An auto mechanic troubleshoots

an engine to find out why it will not

start. In this sense, troubleshooting is used

to characterize a deductive effort to discov-

er the root-cause of a problem.With some

problems, the solution is obvious once

the root-cause is understood (e.g.,

replace the fuel pump). Project trou-

bleshooting, however, is broader than

traditional troubleshooting, in that

effort is directed towards defining goalsand overcoming obstructions. Project

troubleshooting involves the total

problem-solving process. Particular

value will come from solution-finding

or creative problem-solving.

Project troubleshooting involves

high-performance teamwork because

project problems are highly multi-disci-

plinary and demand a diverse skill set.

Under the right conditions, teams can

also be adept at finding solutions. The

view here is that the existing projectgroups are fundamentally competent,

but may need a temporary turbo-charge

in the form of high-performance team-

work and troubleshooting skills. This

temporary team is a Tiger Team.

Project troubleshooting is best

applied in a firefighting mode: a

focused, temporary, high intensity

effort for the purpose of aggressively

resolving a problem. A trouble-man-

agement effort can be triggered by sev-

eral factors, such as early-warning flags

that exceed a threshold or earned value

analysis pointing to some unaccept-

able deviation from plan.

The Need for Project Troubleshooting

Several studies quantify the magnitude

and impact of project disruptions.

Successful

as used in Figure 1

means the project was completed on

budget and on schedule.

In 1999, Keith Buchanan, United

States (U.S.) Assistant Secretary of theNavy for Research Development and

Acquisition, conducted an earned

value audit of all of the Navys ACAT-I

and ACAT-II (the Navys highest prior-

ity) projects. In a letter sent to me on 9

September 2002, Mr. Buchanan stated

that less than one-third of the projects

studied were completed substantially

on-plan; however, the other two-thirds

of projects despite including among

its team highly trained project man-

agers were seriously disrupted.The Massachusetts-based research

organization The Standish Group,

which conducts periodic audits of

information technology (IT) projects,

showed in a 2002 audit that only a

quarter of IT projects are successful. In

this report Standish researchers noted

a correlation between project success

and project size: Small projects (under

US$750,000) have higher success

rates; the largest IT projects, however,

are almost never completed on-sched-

SUCCESSFUL

TROUBLED

Success ratio

Figure 1

Today

Defense contracts

%Troubledprograms

Time

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Perfection is impossible

Figure 2


3/11

their job well, they will not encounter

trouble. The record shows that this pre-

sumption is simply not true.

Project management needs a prac-

tical balance between traditional

proactive risk management and reac-

tive project troubleshooting. Proactive

risk management minimizes the occur-rences of anticipated problems to the

extent that it is practical to do so.

Project troubleshooting, implemented

through Tiger Teams, minimizes the

impact of all unexpected disruptions,

both the large and small.

Risk Management and Project

Troubleshooting: Complimentary Tools

Although todays risk management

tools are developed to avoid problems,

even the most proactive tools have sev-

eral limitations.

Some events are unknown and can-

not be anticipated. These bolt-out-

of-the-blue situations often cause

major disruptions to projects.

From a cost-effectiveness perspec-

tive, preparing plans for every even-

tuality is impractical. Contingency

lists are made and lines are drawn;

but changing circumstances can

cause potential risks that occur

below the line (i.e., risk manage-

ment not funded). These can rap-idly escalate into major

disruptions. High-scoring risk can

decline in importance, subse-

quently draining resources; new

risks can also appear.

Contingency planning is based

on expectations, tools, and infor-

mation available at the time the

plans are made. From a practical

perspective, these plans influence

perception, blinding the user to

an evolving environment andcontributing to the users tunnel

vision (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).

After a disruption has occurred,

these expectations can interfere

with solution-finding.

scriptive: Managers are expected to rig-

orously follow well-defined policies

and procedures. The necessary person-

al skill sets are discipline, planning,

and attention to detail.

Reactive fire-management has the

goal of extinguishing fires. The tools

are physical: hoses, axes, ladders, etc.Firefighting training is heuristic prob-

lem-solving: Firemen are exposed to

certain classes of fire and taught appro-

priate responses (Flyn, 1996). This is

called recognition-primed decision-

making (Klein, 1996). Firemen are

taught how to fight fires in the same

way that engineers are taught how to

solve problems. Firemen need the

skills to problem-solve: to think and

react under real-time pressure.

Table 1 shows that project man-

agement needs proactive and reactive

parts that are functionally similar to

fire-management. Proactive and reac-

tive management each has different

goals, requires different tools and

training, and demands different skills.

The proactive part consists of tradition-

al risk management programs. The

reactive part project troubleshooting

does not, however, presently exist in

project management. Project trou-

bleshooting is much broader than

root-cause analysis. Project managersare forever fighting project problems,

yet there is no explicit training about

how to do this. Consequently, every-

one repeats the same mistakes and suf-

fers from the same classical

dysfunctions. In the absence of effec-

tive problem-solving, disruptions spi-

ral into crises that could have been

avoided.

No one would call firefighters

unnecessary because a good fire pre-

vention program exists. It is commonknowledge that in spite of having the

best fire prevention efforts, fires are

inevitable. And yet some senior project

managers believe that they do not need

troubleshooting because if they do

ance of Project Management

Professional (PMP) and OPM3 certi-

fications may provide further incre-

mental improvements. However,

without a revolutionary new

approach, such as project trou-

bleshooting, it is likely that the mag-

nitude of these changes would be lessthan the improvements that have

occurred over the past 30 years.

Several observations can be drawn

from this information:

After decades of developing

project management tools, par-

ticularly those created by the

U.S. Department of Defense,

the majority of large projects

remain troubled. These are very

dismal numbers.

The largest projects with the

best and most experienced proj-

ect managers have the lowest

success rates, suggesting that

the underlying cause may

include concerns other than

training.

The U.S. defense departments

project management toolkits are

mature. This suggests that while

better proactive management

may improve outcomes, it is

unlikely to have a major impact,

such as improving the projectperformance success rate from

33 percent to 66 percent.

It is possible that a qualitatively

different set of tools may have a

substantial impact on overall proj-

ect performance. This is the poten-

tial of project troubleshooting.

Firefighter Analogy

The need for reactive project trou-

bleshooting is suggested through an

analogy with fire-management pro-grams. Man has endeavored to control

fire since its discovery. Over millennia,

fire-management systems have become

quite refined. Todays evolved fire-

management systems consist of a prac-

tical balance between two modes of

behavior: proactive and reactive.

Proactive fire-management has the

goal of avoiding fires. The tools consist

of fire codes, structure inspections, and

fire-resistant building materials and

construction methods. Training is pre-

Fire-management

Proactive

Reactive

Project management

Prevention programs

Firefighters

Risk management

Project trouble-shooting

Table 1: Proactive and reactive management


4/11

In spite of the best-laid plans,

people make mistakes and com-

mit errors in their judgment.

Conflicting political and/or

business agendas often force

poor program decisions.

Updating a risk mitigation plan

in response to changing projectconditions is more difficult and

less effective than the original

pre-program risk plan. Options

are constrained; commitments

have been made; money is burn-

ing at exceptional rates: There

emerges an urgent need for reac-

tive solutions that are not part of

traditional risk management.

Dealing with these events under

real-time pressure only results in

reactive problem-solving.

Risk is a healthy and necessary

consequence of worthwhile develop-

ment projects. A high-risk project

means that managers are pushing-the-

envelope to achieve high-performance

and produce high-value systems. A

low-risk project that is well within the

state-of-the-art generally yields low-

performance, dumbed-down systems.

The project managers goal should not

focus on avoiding risk; the project

manager should strive to manage riskto prevent risk from disrupting the

project. The aim is not simply risk mit-

igation and risk avoidance; the manag-

ers goal is the total management of

riskproactively and reactively.

Traditional risk management is

proactive and based on the view that it

is possible in principle to plan a per-

fect project. Project troubleshooting

adds the reactive component, based on

the view that disruptive events, partic-

ularly with large long-term projects,will occur no matter how carefully the

project is planned. Traditional risk

management and project trou-

bleshooting complement each other.

Together, these are powerful tools for

the total management of risk.

Advanced Teamwork Tools

High performance problem-solving

teams effectively tap into creative tal-

ent, integrate outside expert opinion,

find practical creative solutions, pro-

vide authoritative advice, and motivate

the people who execute the project.

Creative problem-solving heuris-

tics work well with groups because the

presence of a group stimulates people

to think about things in a different

way. Stein (1974) points out as oth-

ers have also noted

that individualscan stimulate creativity. An idea

expressed by one person sparks a new

idea in the mind of a second person.

Neither individual would have devel-

oped the new idea in isolation: In this

case, creativity is a group process. If the

group is managed in a way that culti-

vates productive conflict, an open,

honest struggle to reconcile opposing

views emergesfrom this comes a

high-performance Tiger Team.

The analysis skills required for

problem-definition are different than

the creative skills required for solution-

finding. Indeed, few people are very

good at both. We all know creative

people who do not have the patience

and discipline to be good managers.

The opposite also has some truth. The

discipline, decisiveness, and attention

to detail that make a good manager

can inhibit the ability to think outside

the box. Case studies reveal the impact

of this conflict as a difficulty perceiving

options and opportunities. However,assembling a project team offers the

project manager the opportunity to

employ skills that they do not normal-

ly use during day-to-day operations.

Tiger Teams

The purpose of a Tiger Team is to help

project teams problem-solve. Tiger

Teams are distinguished by both a high

level of coordination and a deep inter-

personal dialog among the members.

Productivity comes from uninhibitedconstructive conflict. One example of a

Tiger Team is ExCom, a group of senior

advisors that the late Robert F.

Kennedy, during his tenure as the U.S.

attorney general, led during the Cuban

missile crisis. The Manhattan Project

the effort to develop the atomic

bomb is another example, as are the

management groups that lead many

start-up companies.

For project troubleshooting, the

goal is to build strength in order to

provide existing teams with trou-

bleshooting skills. Lencioni (2002),

who provides an excellent description

of a high-performance team (he talks

about how it works and what it takes

to set it up), states that an effective

troubleshooting team exhibits five

characteristics:1. Trust and respect: The team

functions as a unit; members

feel free to say what they think

without the threat of reper-

cussions from organizational

politics.

2. Uninhibited constructive conflict:

Total focus on content and ideas.

3. Commitment: Every team mem-

ber participatesno observers

and no holding back.

4. Accountability: Members hold

each other accountable for

results; this promotes a slacker-

free environment.

5. Common goals: Members place

common goals above individual

needs.

Tiger Teams are not work groups.

The purpose of a work group is to

exchange information and coordinate

activities. Working in a traditional

hierarchal structure, work groups are

most effective when the task can bedivided into well-defined functional

components with clean interfaces. For

this situation, work groups are far

more time efficient. A traditional staff

meeting is an example of a work group

experience.

Optimum Tiger Team Size

There is an optimum size for Tiger

Teams: While large groups bring much

experience to the problem, which

makes large group preferable, the sizeof the group, as it grows, impairs com-

munications among team members.

Not everyone is fully engaged. A large

group impedes the intense, intimate

level of communication that Tiger

Teams need. As a result, the group

fractures and form subgroups. My

view is that the optimum size of a

problem-solving group depends on

each individuals ability to process

information. Miller (1956) addressed

individual information processing


5/11

Groupthink is a leadership failure. The

pressure to conform, to be part of the

team, and to not make waves inhibits

healthy disagreement and critical

thinking. The result is that the group

confuses consensus with a solution

and takes strong positions that are

inconsistent with the external environ-ment. Groupthink exhibits a number

of classic symptoms that can be used

to test for dysfunction and provide a

basis for mitigation (Beebe &

Masterson, 2000):

Critical thinking is not encour-

aged or rewarded.

Members believe the group can

do no wrong.

Members are too concerned

about justifying their actions.

Members apply pressure to those

who do not support the group.

Members believe they have

reached a true consensus.

Members are too concerned about

reinforcing the leaders beliefs.

Problem-solving Tools

A problem is defined as an obstructed

goal. The project manager must con-

front disruptive events and problems

that demand resolution. Every problem

is defined by three characteristics: goal

state, present state, and obstructions.These must align with the tasks

that project teams need to perform to

define the problem. In addition, the

hard-core problem-solving process

consists of two sequential stages: prob-

lem definition and solution-finding.

These stages must proceed in sequence.

It makes no sense to search for solu-

tions without first developing a clear

definition of the problem.

The first task is to define the prob-

lem. What this means is that teamsmust explicitly state the problem. In

many cases, the project manager has a

pretty good idea of the problem cause

or the present state. In other situations,

the root-cause may not be as clear. In

either event, project managers must

verify the causal factors, the goals, and

the boundaries of the problem. In the

problem-solving community, this

problem definition task is often called

rational problem-solving. The processes

are similar to rational decision-making.

capability and found that people can

keep track of seven things. Fox (1989)

and Osborne (1963) have determined

that the optimum size of a facilitated

problem-solving group is between 7

and 10 active participants.

Participant Selection

Participant selection is important. The

task is to pack as much potential

power as possible into a limited group

size. All critical skill sets and problem

facets need to be represented. In addi-

tion, the Tiger Team needs to include

people responsible for executing the

results, thereby providing ownership

and motivation. Tiger Teams provide

project teams with the superb opportu-

nity to integrate the wisdom and expe-

rience of outside content experts.

Tiger Team Leadership

Effective leadership is a critical compo-

nent of an effective Tiger Team. There

are two basic forms, the traditional

group with a single leader and a group

with split leadership (client/referee).

The traditional group leader man-

ages both process and content. In

order for the team to be successful, it

requires a leader who is an exception-

ally talented individual. This type of

leader derives their authority fromtheir grasp of the project content. This

leader also possesses sufficient people

skills to motivate strong egos.

However, because traditional group

leaders are not trained in process, their

groups are susceptible to the classic

dysfunctions of small groups (domi-

nated by authority figures, minority

views ignored, premature solutions,

groupthink, focus drift, etc.). One of

the reasons Tiger Teams are so rare is

that this form of leadership is difficultto effectively implement.

The client/referee form of project

leadership achieves higher project per-

formance by splitting the leadership

role into content and process man-

agers. Clients have primary responsi-

bility for the outcome: They participate

in content discussion, hold content

opinions, and manage content direc-

tion indirectly, through the referee. The

referee is a content-neutral facilitator

who is trained in small group process

and has a content-culture background.

This form has the distinct advantage of

enabling the client to manage outside

of his or her personal skill base. A ref-

eree can balance the clients skills.

Environment

Moving the group to an off-site worklocation eliminates distractions,

enables the group to focus on the prob-

lem at hand, and reinforces the impor-

tance of their task. If the emphasis is on

solution finding, an informal living

room environment works better than a

traditional conference room. Passive

observers sap energy and should be

avoided. Suitable audio/visual equip-

ment and note-keeping services should

be provided.

Group Processes

There are a number of standard exercis-

es that facilitators employ to dismantle

interpersonal barriers and encourage

the group to function as an intellectual

unit (Scannell, 1991). Group building

makes a real difference even with scien-

tific and engineering groups. To func-

tion effectively as an integrated unit,

participants need to respect certain

ground rules. These rules of engage-

ment are taught during the kick-off ses-

sion. Here are some examples:In-and-out listening

Speaking in-headlines

Questioning for

understanding only

Structure offers:

How to ...

I wish ...

Build on the ideas of wishes

Respect roles

Assume value

Listen for newness

No (fatal) flying missilesStaying loose until rigorous

conditions count

The importance of clearly defined

goals cannot be overemphasized. The

commitment to achieving these goals

must override the need for personal

recognition.

Groupthink

Groupthink is a classic dysfunction

of cohesive groups (Janus, 1971).


6/11

on the materials at hand. The solution

may need to be both novel and practi-

cal. This is the definition of creativity.

With ill-defined problems, most

of the effort is directed towards defin-

ing the problem. Once the problem is

defined, the solution may be obvious

and require no additional effort. Anexample mentioned earlier is a

mechanic confronted with an engine

that will not start. The mechanic con-

ducts a root-cause analysis and discov-

ers that the fuel pump is broken. Once

the problem has been defined, the

solution, replacing the fuel pump, is

obvious. Ill-defined problems can be a

complicated mess requiring consider-

able effort to sort out what the real

problem is.

Problems can also differ by the

number of acceptable solutions. Some

problems have no solutions; some,

only one correct solution; and some,

many acceptable solutions.

Some problems require pure

deductive reasoning: the process of

logically drawing conclusions. An

example of classic deduction is a syllo-

gism, such as all S are M; all M are P;

therefore all S are P. The counterpart to

deductive reasoning is inductive rea-

soning: the process of thinking as

hypothesis testing. An example of pureinductive reasoning is to find the gen-

eral rule that would enable prediction

of additional numbers in the

sequence: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, etc....

Most practical problems require a

combination of inductive plus deduc-

tive reasoning. Consider a detective

attempting to solve a murder mystery

(Figure 6). Most of the detectives

time is spent acquiring information

and searching for clues (deductive).

Every so often, the detective musthypothesize a theory of the crime,

then test the theory against available

facts (inductive).

We have become very good at

reductionist problem-solving strate-

gies: Divide the problem into function-

al components with clean interfaces,

solve the components, and then

reassemble the problem into a com-

plete system. Unfortunately, not all

problems yield to a reductionist attack.

With some problems, the components

Rational problem-solving is a reduction-

ist task that individuals can effectively

perform.

Once the problem is defined, the

second step is to find solutions: to dis-

cover or, if necessary, to invent ways to

overcome the problem obstructions.

The problem-solving community

refers to this task as creative problem-

solvinga disciplined search for solu-

tions. This process consists of two

subtasks: First, to identify all possible

options; then, to evaluate and select

the most appropriate option. Creative

problem-solving often involves induc-

tive reasoning skills and is best con-

ducted by small groups.The two core problem-solving

tasks are conceptually very simple.

Projects are complicated by the wide

diversity of problems that project

must solve. With some problems,

project managers must direct the

teams effort towards defining the

problem. Once the problem is

defined, the solution is obvious. With

other problems, the definition is obvi-

ous and the project manager must

direct the teams effort towards findingsolutions.

Kinds of Problems

Problems can be classified as either

well-defined or ill-defined. With well-

defined problems, all the effort goes

into finding solutions. With ill-defined

problems, teams must direct consider-

able effort into defining the problem.

An example of a well-defined

problem is the Towers of Hanoi in

Figure 4. These towers are composed of

three same-sized pegs and six differing-

sized rings. The task is to move all six

rings from peg one to peg three as illus-

trated in the figure. The constraint is that

the rings must be moved one at a time,

and a large ring can never be placed on

top of a small ring. For the Towers of

Hanoi,the goal state, present state, and

obstruction are all obvious. All the effort

goes into finding the sequence.

Another example of a well-defined

problem is attempting to open a corked

wine bottle when there is no corkscrew,

as shown in Figure 5. The task is to

pour a glass of wine. The goal state,

present state, and obstruction are all

obvious. The whole challenge is gettingthe wine out of the bottle. All of the

effort here is necessarily directed at

solution-finding, inventing some

method to get at the wine. For this

problem, the best solution may depend

Define the problem

A) Goal state

B) Present state

C) Obstruction

Problem solving tasks

1

Find the Solution

A) Develop all possible options

B) Select the most appropriate

2

Rational problem solving

Creative problem solving

Figure 3

Towers Of Hanoi

Initial state

Goal state

Figure 4


7/11

are so strongly interrelated that there

is no reasonable way to decompose

the problem, and the whole problem

must be solved at once. These are

what Gestalt psychologists call insight

problems.

An example of an insight problem

is the nine-dot puzzle, as shown in

Figure 7. Given nine dots, the task is to

connect all nine dots with four straight

lines without taking the pencil off of

the paper. The obstruction here is the

imaginary box around the nine dots.

Once one realizes that this box is not areal constraint and that it is okay to

draw the lines outside the box, the

solution becomes "ah-ha!" obvious.

Lastly, we have problems that are

unexpected surprises in the sense that

there is nothing in our background

that provides guidance as to how to

solve the problem. Unexpected prob-

lems often yield to analogic reasoning

(Holyoak & Thagard, 1999). With ana-

logical reasoning, we think of a source

analog, something that is similar to theunexpected problem, then look for

similarities and distinctions.

An example of analogic reasoning

is a traveler in an unfamiliar environ-

ment: Thrust into an exotic culture,

unable to speak the language, the trav-

eler makes sense of the new culture by

comparing it with their familiar cul-

ture, looking for similarities and dis-

tinctions. The comparison, while

imprecise, provides useful guidance.

While the conceptual core of the

problem-solving process (problem

definition and solution- finding) is

conceptually very simple, the vast array

of different problem types complicates

the process. Heuristic tools provide

some useful structure.

Rational Problem-solving Tools

Rational problem-solving tools are

heuristic tools that help define the

problem: the goal state, the present

state, and the obstructions. As previ-

ously stated, problem definition is the

first stage of the two-stage problem-

solving sequence.

Rational problem-solving heuris-

tics include root-cause analysis (Gano,

1999), problem specification (Kepner &

Tregoe, 1997), fishbone diagrams, and

constraint analysis, among other factors

(Robson, 1995). A popular application

of rational problem-solving heuristics

involves repairing failed production

lines and resolving technical anomalies

in the nuclear power industry. We have

many poorly documented legacy sys-

tems in use and root-cause analysis is a

good method for figuring out why the

systems are not working.

Today, problem-solving is not a

complete theory. From a practical

point of view, this means that we must

rely on heuristics, better known asrules-of-thumb. Root-cause analysis is

an example of a rational problem-solv-

ing heuristic. Heuristics are partially

based on research and partially based

on practical experience. Sometimes a

heuristic yields a solution, sometimes

it does not. There is an art to produc-

tively mapping the heuristic to the

problem. The person who can do this

needs to grasp both the strengths and

weaknesses of the heuristic plus the

content culture. Individuals skilled

with the heuristic, but lacking a sound

grasp of the culture, are often unsuc-

cessful. This is the reason problem-

solving heuristics are not more

commonly used with esoteric content.

A close corollary to rational prob-

lem-solving is decision-making, which

involves many of the same skills.

Applying rational decision-makingtools is not magical; rather, the diffi-

cult task is recognizing that a particular

decision is critical and warrants the

cost of a formal process.

Managers tend to be comfortable

with rational problem-solving because

the necessary skill sets discipline,

logic, patience, attention to detail

are consistent with the skills that make

them good managers. Creative prob-

lem-solving is a different story.

The Limits of Causal Analysis

Understanding the cause of a problem

is an important part of the rational

problem-solving process. Sometimes

understanding cause suggests an obvi-

ous solution; other times, it does not.

The fact that causal analysis fails does

not mean a solution does not exist.

Rather, a deliberate search for solu-

tions is necessary.

To illustrate the need for a delib-

erate search, consider the situationFigure 6: Who-done-it

Nine-dot problem

Nine-dot problem

Successful solution

Figure 7

Wine bottle problem

Figure 5


8/11

of a drowning woman. To her, the

immediate need is a solution, rescue,

cure. The causal factors about how she

got into that situation are irrelevant. A

search for causal factors would delay

rescueshe should direct all of her

effort to finding a solution to the

problem at hand. From a big-pictureperspective, understanding cause and

introducing preventive measures

would reduce (but not eliminate) the

risk of drowning.

Creative Problem-solving Tools

Creative problem-solving tools are

heuristics directed at finding or inventing

solutions. Solution-finding or creative

problem-solving is the second stage of

the two-stage problem-solving sequence.

Brainstorming (Osborne, 1963),

invented by Alex Osborn in the 1950s,

is the best-known creative problem-

solving heuristic. While classic brain-

storming is appropriate for

lightweight, easily understood prob-

lems, it is based on a principle that has

withstood the test of time and now

forms the basis for many creative prob-

lem-solving heuristicsthe separation

of ideation from judgment. The basic

principle is that judging inhibits the

development of ideas.

Creativity is defined as the abilityto produce solutions that are both

novel and practical. But creativity is

more than the ability to develop ideas.

We all know free spirits who are a

fountain of ideas but who lack the

sense for determining the difference

between ideas that are meaningful and

ideas that are not. The challenge is to

find the one percent of ideas that one

can develop into a practical response

to a problem. Combine that font-of-

ideas person with someone possessinggood analytical skills and mutual

respect and a very productive creative

team would result. This two-person

creative team is consistent with

Osbornes separation of ideation from

judgment. Representative creative

problem-solving heuristics include

nominal groups (Rickards, 1988),

Synectics Excursions (Gordon, 1961),

and lateral thinking (DeBono, 1992).

In practice, creative problem-solv-

ing heuristics are most widely used to

develop ideas for new consumer prod-

ucts and advertising campaigns. These

are shallow problems; the given state is

obvious and there is usually more than

one acceptable solution. The basic

principles of creative problem-solving

have broader applicability: These prin-

ciples are appropriate for using tosolve intellectual problems, where no

one person understands the whole

problem and it is necessary to assem-

ble a group of compatible experts to

provide the necessary understanding

to realize a solution. Applying creative

problem-solving to project trou-

bleshooting represents enormous

untapped potential. To tap this poten-

tial, it is necessary to exploit problem-

solving teams.

Case Studies

Since case studies anchor theoretical

work to the real world, and provide us

with data to test hypotheses, these

studies can help project teams identify

dysfunctions that teams must over-

come. Case studies also provide project

managers with real-world recommen-

dations to consider when solving

problems and help teams define their

need and shape their requirements for

project troubleshooting tools.

A primary case study is TB-23B, aUS$35 million firm fixed-price full-

scale engineering development contract

won by Martin Marietta in 1988. The

contractor failed to meet the self-noise

specification (a limit on acoustic noise

generated by boundary layer turbu-

lences). As a result, the Navy terminat-

ed the contract for causewith triple

damages. On appeal, the termination

was reversed to for conveniencewith

no damages. I interviewed the people

involved and reconstructed events; Ifound that there was more than one

opportunity for both parties to create a

win-win resolution to this dispute. The

parties involved in this case, however,

did not see their opportunities.

The lessons that I learned from the

TB-23B study were supported by my

study of other projects: the Navys A-12

Stealth Bomber Program, which was

cancelled by the Office of the Secretary

of Defense and claimed US$5 billion

in damages (Stevenson, 2001); the

Union Pacific merger with Southern

Pacific that produced a 1997 freight-

car gridlock in the Western U.S.;

Boeings loss of the A-22 Joint Tactical

Fighter; the Manhattan Project; the

Apollo 13 capsule recovery; the space

shuttle Challenger disaster; the space

shuttle Columbia disaster; the Big Dig... plus many personal discussions with

experienced project managers.

The Project Troubleshooting

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is a speculation that can-

not be proven, only disproved by test-

ing it against data. My project

troubleshooting hypothesis is present-

ed from this perspective:

There is always something that can be

done to improve a disrupted program.

Case Study Lessons

The following general practical lessons

are more or less appropriate approach-

es for working on projects, depending

on the circumstances.

First priority is triage, to con-

tain the damage. Establish pri-

orities, find out what is bleeding

most and fix it.

Be aggressive. Stamp out prob-

lems early and thoroughly.Beware of the danger of prob-

lems spiraling out of control.

Clearly establish ownership.

Know who has ultimate respon-

sibility for solving the problem.

Defer to expertise. Authority to

make decisions migrates to the

people with the most expertise,

regardless of rank (Weick &

Sutcliffe, 2001).

Deliberately search for early

warning signals. Look for badnews. A strong devils advocate

participating in early project

reviews would likely have an

impact.

Search for the potential impact

of external events.While the fall

of the Berlin wall immediately

impacted many cold-war budg-

ets, projects often move too

slowly to appreciate impact.

An organization in crisis does

what it knows how to do, and


9/11

it does it more intensely. If the

organization is good at disci-

pline, planning, and oversight,

that is what it will do when a

crisis occurs, as opposed to

focusing its efforts on trou-

bleshooting.

Trouble-shoot, dont micro-manage. There is strong pres-

sure for upper management to

seize control and make deci-

sions that lower-level people are

more competent to make.

Instead, management should

provide the project team with

project troubleshooting tools

and make sure the team follows

the problem-solving basics:

define the goal state, present

state, and obstructions.

The real problem may not be

what it appears to be. The TB-

23B contractor, from the lowest

tech through the most senior

executive, was convinced that

they had a technical problem

and that they could solve it. In

fact, they had reached, if not

exceeded, state-of-the-art quality.

The more serious issue was cus-

tomer relations. This reinforces

the need to verify the goal state.

Test for Groupthink. Both theTB-23B contractor and the cus-

tomer seemed to suffer here.

The contractor was obsessed

with engineering issues.

Management wanted to hear

"we got it under control." That

is what they heard, even though

it was clear to lower-level man-

agers that this was not true. On

the customer side, the govern-

ment seemed to have unrealis-

tic expectations about theenforceability of a fixed-price

contract.

The most serious loss was

unforeseen opportunity. On

TB23B, the contractor never

thought to question the validity

of the specification. The con-

tractor never focused on

improving customer relations

and dialog. The contractor never

pressed for a side-by-side test

(new vs. old) that would have

been the best measure of per-

formance. A disciplined search

for solutions can create options

and opportunities.

Poor decisions hurt.There were a

number of decisions on TB-23B

that were made without a full

appreciation of the consequences.While these decisions hurt the proj-

ect, none proved fatal. On other

projects and crises, poor decisions

can be fatal. Everyone on the team

knows when a decision is impor-

tant and the tools are well estab-

lished; it is a matter of their paying

attention and using the tools.

Outside expert opinion needs to

be integrated. On TB-23B, the

contractor had superb expertise

inside the corporate organization,

but not as part of the project

team. These experts, therefore,

had little impact on the crisis:

Their advice was rendered at too

high a level and was not integrat-

ed by the project team.

Summary

In spite of the best proactive planning,

large long-term projects are subject to

inevitable, unexpected disruptions.

Project troubleshooting mitigates

these disruptions by applying general

problem-solving tools to projects.

Since projects are multi-disciplinaryand have multiple stakeholder inter-

ests, project troubleshooting is most

effectively implemented by Tiger

Teams. Todays management profes-

sionals have no more powerful tool

than a committed team.

Tiger Teams are intensely man-

aged small groups of selected experts.

Their core performance comes from

open and honest dialog, productive

conflict, and the struggle to fit the

problem pieces together to produce a

unified whole.

The Tiger Team task is problem-

solving. Problem-solving consists of

two sequential stages. The first stage

is to define the problem: present

state, goal state, and obstruction. The

THE PROJECT TROUBLE-SHOOTING HYPOTHESIS:

There is always something that can be done to improve a disrupted program.

The challenge is to find it.

The first task is for the project manager to establish clear goals.

The goal provides the basis for selecting Tiger Team participants.All problem facets and stakeholder interests must be represented.

Test for Groupthink and tunnel vision.These results will guide you in setting up the Tiger Team.

Keep the Tiger Team size to 7-10.Most problem-solving and decision groups are too big for effective discussion.

Sequester offsite to focus the group and avoid distractions.

The Tiger Team meeting is organized around the two problem-solving tasks:Firstexplicitly define the problem: present state goal state, obstructions.Thenconduct a disciplined search for solutions.

Search, explore and develop all potential solutions before judging and selecting.Do not latch onto a solution without thoroughly exploring all options.

Manage an open, honest, high- intensity discussion - no politics.Everybody participates - no slackers.

The goal is honest consensus. The whole group integrates and makes decisions.The group should not be an extension of the leaders opinion.

Use problem-solving heuristics as appropriate.

Consider a content neutral referee/facilitator to manage process and map heuristicsto the problem.

Table 2: Project troubleshooting main elements


10/11


11/11

a) project troubleshooting - tiger teams for reactive risk management

Documents