A Very Brief Discussion of Information Driven Business Management: A Problem Solving Approach

by Donald V. Steward, 4/15/00

Every problem has its own inherent structure. By looking at the information items needed to solve the problem and which items depend on which others, we can obtain the information flow needed to solve that specific problem. Given this structure, an 'approach' can be developed defining which of these dependencies will be satisfied by earlier tasks and which will be satisfied by assumptions to be verified by later tasks. From this we can derive a plan and schedule. This dynamic organization changes whenever the problem or approach changes.

The computer can be used to display to everyone involved in the solution process the visibility to see the whole problem, his or her role in solving that problem, and the changes in the state of the information during the process of solving the problem. This visibility provides greater accountability, allowing greater autonomy, leading then to faster respond times, greater learning, and the tapping of knowledge from throughout the organization.

The most common method for solving complex problems assumes that a problem can be repeatedly broken down into smaller problems that can be solved. Problems that are naturally amenable to this approach are called 'tree problems' because the directed graph, i.e., a diagram showing what information items depend on what others, looks like a tree. But a great many problems are not amenable to this approach because their graphs contain circuits, which cannot be represented as trees. We call these 'web problems'. People often try to force web problems kicking and screaming into a tree approach, which can be very ineffective.

We tackle web problems by finding the blocks of items in the graph that contain the circuits. Then in each block, we assign distinct natural numbers to the nodes representing the items within that block. This divides the graph for that block into two sub-graphs. One contains the arcs from lower numbers to higher numbers that we call the 'task graph', and the other contains the arcs from higher numbers to lower numbers that we call the 'assumption graph'. The task graph shows the dependencies satisfied by tasks done earlier. The assumption graph shows the dependencies satisfied by assumptions to be verified by tasks done later. Each assignment of numbers to the nodes represents what we call an 'approach' to solving the problem.

We can represent the graph as a matrix where the rows and their corresponding columns represent the items, and the non-blank marks within the matrix represent the dependence of one item on another. But to display this as a matrix requires that there must be some order to the rows and their corresponding columns as they are shown in the matrix. This order might generally be arbitrary. But we will use this order to represent the 'approach', i.e., changing the order the items as they appear in the matrix gives a different approach. The diagonal divides the two graphs, the task graph on one side and the assumption graph on the other. This matrix then represents the plan for this approach to the problem. We call this a dependency structure matrix.

During the implementation of the plan, what information items are known and which of these still depend on as yet unverified assumptions constitutes the state of the solution. This information state of the solution is much more informative than just knowing what tasks have and have not been done because the tasks may have to be redone with new assumptions if the earlier assumptions prove to be invalid.

The task graph can be treated as a critical path network provided all the assumptions are valid. The assumption graph is used to modify this critical path network to provide for reviews and possible iterations in the event that the assumptions might not be valid.

We have devised a software program that allows one to play with various 'approaches', providing heuristic advice for each block on where to use assumptions to break the circuits.

This program and its technique for solving problems have the following implications:

1. Each problem has its own structure of information flow inherent in the problem.
2. This information flow can be used to solve the problem most efficiently.
3. This organization is dynamically tailored to the structure of that particular problem.
4. We should start planning not with the tasks and their dependencies, but rather with the information items and their dependencies plus an approach. Then the tasks will fall out naturally on one side of the diagonal, with the assumptions on the other.
5. Very complex problems can be managed by this technique.
6. The planner can play with various approaches, choosing the best that satisfies his or her needs.
7. Assumptions that might otherwise be overlooked are made explicit, allowing their risks to be managed.
8. Changes in approach will change the task dependencies but not the information dependencies. Thus the information dependencies are more stable than the task dependencies.
9. As the process of solving the problem proceeds, each person involved in the process can see the matrix plan on his or her own screen. This provides what we call 'situation visibility'.

Situation visibility then has the following implications:

1. Everyone can see his or her effort in the context of the whole problem, who affects him or her and who he or she affects.
2. One can be informed when the information he or she needs is available, or trace why it might not be available as needed.
3. As unexpected circumstances arise, the approach can be changed and displayed to everyone involved.
4. Since everyone can see the problem, there is less need for management intermediation.
5. Situation visibility makes each person more accountable and thus allows him or her to act more autonomously.
6. Situation visibility let's people learn from what others are doing, volunteer to assist as they see a need they can meet, and aspire to and obtain the necessary training to undertake new roles.
7. Knowledge can be developed and used from throughout the organization.
8. With greater autonomy and less management intermediation, the problem solving process can move significantly faster and with greater flexibility.