For Starters #34: Solve the Actual Problem
“Every system is perfectly designed to get the result it does.” – Dr. Deming
Struggling with your pricing, product, or value prop? Let’s talk.
Chindōgu (珍道具) is the practice of inventing ingenious everyday gadgets that seem to be ideal solutions to particular problems, but which may cause more problems than they solve.
Once a client called me because one of their customers would create a massive order and then revise it nearly every day for the next 30 days. This had been going on for years and was causing all kinds of whiplash at my client (yes, in fact, they would react to every revision).
Odd to be sure, but experience has told me, people are generally lazy, so something significant must be driving this constant revision. Something this significant the customer would probably be open to sharing. Let’s get the customer on the phone.
Me: “Let's get them on the phone.“
My client: “Not yet. Let’s put the data analysis team on it first.”
Me: 🤷
When the data analysis team processed the order revision history against the actual orders they were still scratching their heads. No consistent trend line just a roller coaster of noise until the final order, almost an identical order as the one 30 days prior.
The data science team presumed it was an inventory visibility problem, and assumed the customer was also thrashing internally at the constant revision. They proposed installing an IoT sensor on the customer site. I suspected we were still missing something big, and because the team finally had a solution to propose they were now comfortable talking to the client.
My client: “We’ve been analyzing your usage patterns and your order history and we’d like to offer 6-month auto-fulfillment trial, which would mean installing a sensor in your facility.”
Their customer: “Oh, that’s super interesting, if we say yes, will you remove the contract term requiring a 30-day lead time on all orders?”
My client: “30-day lead time in the contract terms?”
Their customer: “Yes, that’s why we’ve always been so diligent to always create on order on the first day of the month.”
Me: 😳
No fancy sensor or sophisticated technology needed, just a realization that the previous contract terms were no longer working for either party (Oh, and that workarounds are all around us).
Any intervention not addressing this underlying disconnect will succumb to it.
As Brad at Quantum Lean reminds us, all activities subordinate to the bottleneck, whether you do it intentionally or not.
Subordinating to the bottleneck can be transformational, not just to operations but to an entire business model.
The one exercise I actually found the Business Model Canvas an illuminating tool for was comparing the history of Netflix’s business model evolution and identifying the bottleneck each step along the way.
From selling DVDs one at a time where the bottleneck is a DVD can only be sold once.
To renting DVDs where the bottleneck is rental fee volume per customer.
To selling subscriptions to DVD rentals where the bottleneck is USPS delivery speeds.
To streaming video globally where the bottleneck is regional streaming rights.
Netflix’s overall value prop - conveniently find something good to watch - has remained constant through all those transitions.
The actual problem was never about selling more plastic discs, it was removing bottlenecks to ever wider distribution.
On a life-or-death project, I was introduced to the hierarchy of controls, which I’ve referred to frequency since to help get at the actual problem in front of us.
Yes, PPE is helpful, but it has all kinds of failure states - the actual problem is the environment is hazardous. The interventions to systematically make the environment more safe are much much wider, more reliable, and more interesting, than simply introducing new PPE to the people in the environment.
One common way to get at the actual problem is by asking Why? five times.
As a technique it’s been criticized as some people tend to still stop at symptoms rather than continuing to the actual root cause.
As earnestly and objectively answering the fifth Why has gut punched me multiple times (a strong indication you’ve gotten close to the root cause), I can see the inclination to stop short.
Especially when, as in my above example, the actual problem can’t be addressed by the people in the room in the moment, even though addressing the problem was their mandate.
Different people with different skills are required, or at least a willingness of those in the room to develop into different people with those different skills.
This willingness is the magic of entrepreneurship.